Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 22:39:57 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fernando_Herrero_Carr=C3=B3n?= <elferdo@gmail.com> To: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Any way to add USES clause depending on two options without including bsd.port.options.mk? Message-ID: <CAMwkeZwLvETMwWPwj_aq-4zb9rPGXGzG-PAOCfY=O95HVp9iPA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <dc234792-8bc3-e1ae-e9f7-1bc91c2d92bc@rawbw.com> References: <4e06c0b2-e70e-68e8-732b-97774cff8b2d@rawbw.com> <CAMwkeZwH7KqU0BG7xoX_Qeu8gZ%2B%2BZ4uFhqLO79xe5v=WK5j0Fg@mail.gmail.com> <dc234792-8bc3-e1ae-e9f7-1bc91c2d92bc@rawbw.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
El 24 jun. 2016 9:36 p. m., "Yuri" <yuri@rawbw.com> escribi=C3=B3: > > On 06/23/2016 14:54, Fernando Herrero Carr=C3=B3n wrote: >> >> Could you please elaborate on the reasons why you want to do that? I don't >> see how that particular combination of options would introduce a dependence >> that neither of them alone would. > > > In this particular case, as I figured, this isn't actually necessary. But it could be necessary in general, when, say, only in GUI there are some messages to translate, or only GUI needs python. > > >> And then, why not include port.options.mk? Then you could explicitly check >> for both options being set. > > > > You are right. But without including port.options.mk Makefile looks so much more elegant. Several times I received e-mails asking to remove port.options.mk inclusion to highten the degree of elegance this way. -) Fair enough! I am not one to argue against elegance ;-) but as Mathieu said: magic only goes so far! Good luck! > > > Yuri > Fernando
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAMwkeZwLvETMwWPwj_aq-4zb9rPGXGzG-PAOCfY=O95HVp9iPA>