Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 16:11:22 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 270989] print/ghostscript10: adds libgs.so; connects to USES and DEFAULT_VERSIONS facilities; flavorized Message-ID: <bug-270989-7788-PQH7BlCsPL@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-270989-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-270989-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D270989 --- Comment #19 from Michael Osipov <michael.osipov@siemens.com> --- (In reply to Chad Jacob Milios from comment #17) > i agree in a perfect world X11 should be made an option and FLAVOR should= not be used here; i was only trying to more closely mimic the installation= and behavior of the version 7 8 and 9 ports. And as you pointed out howeve= r, dependant ports cannot presently enforce OPTIONS in their dependencies. = it makes sense some would depend on gs-x11 (which itself depends on gs-base= ), and allow others to simultaneously depend only on gs-base. >=20 > The FLAVORS route (as with the separate-ports route of 7 8 and 9) was set= up so the flavors dont conflict with one another, rather -x11 compliments = -base (thats why i opted to keep those suffixes rather than go with '' vs -= nox11, which to me seemed to imply based on my limited observations made th= ruout the ports tree that to have no suffix vs a -nox11 suffix would mean t= heyre mutually exclusive rather than could get installed together, and that= the no-suffix version would encompass all the functionality of the lesser = and then some) >=20 > As you see, ghostscript9-agpl-x11 only installs the one file X11.so (igno= ring the obligatory LICENSE in /usr/local/share) and i sought to work as si= milarly as is prudent I totally understand your objective here. It, unfortunately, doesn't work f= or 10 :-( > you're probably correct that my decision to put --disable-dynamic in the = base flavor and --enable-dynamic in the x11 flavor would build X11.so as ut= ter trash. that's why you're the maintainer and i'm just a pleb :) i'm not = actually sure the true dependency graph between libgs.so, gsx, gs's X11.so,= and/or any of the ports claiming dependency on ghostscript[789]-x11. i am = unclear the context and greater ramifications of {en,dis}able-dynamic. See my preceding explanation. > i have seen ports that USES ghostscript:x11 simply because they themselve= s utilize x11 yet they're perfectly fine and full featured with libgs.so, w= ithout gs's X11.so. i agree the whole tree could use some cleanup around gh= ostscript and i'd be glad to help with that at your and/or diizzy's directi= on This needs an investigation. I am really now inclined that since X11 is one driver among many, to have it a disabled option by default. We can reconsid= er if someone starts to complain with a good reason for this. > i'm currently running a handful of X11 apps through their paces to figure= out who actually dynamically links what exactly and why What you need to figure out whether they use any of the X11 devices at all,= if not, they don't need X11. This is my understanding. (could be wrong) I will meanwhile rework patch for point 2 to a port option. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-270989-7788-PQH7BlCsPL>