Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:17:03 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Jens Rehsack <rehsack@liwing.de> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: ports/36112: [PATCH] New feature for whole ports tree: GS_PORT variable Message-ID: <20030728121703.GA63021@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <3F25126C.4030501@liwing.de> References: <200307272105.h6RL5BTo000730@helo.liwing.de> <20030727221222.GA93833@huckfinn.arved.de> <20030728114351.GA53070@rot13.obsecurity.org> <3F25126C.4030501@liwing.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 02:09:16PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: > So what's your preferred next step: committing patch from ports/36112 > and close all PR's I submitted and re-check after commit all ports > which are not affected, or shall I re-submit with the style of > ports/36112? I'd like to commit a version of the patch in 36112, with my suggested modifications, and updated to handle changes to the affected ports in the time since the PR was submitted (e.g. new ports, fixing conflicts in the patch, etc). I'd prefer it if someone else could submit the revised patch, but I'll get to it eventually if no-one else does. > And to give a statement about WITHOUT_X11 and print/ghostscript-*-nox11: > I think it makes much sense to check, because the right dependency is > kept, but I don't want to blow the check to much and avoid changing > the configure-scripts more than absolutely necessary. The scripts must > have knowledge about the handling of bsd.port.mk and the style how > print/ghostscript-*-nox11 are working. I don't like those kind of code, > so I tried to have a small step and discuss about further changes > with experts (eg. like you and Tilman). I'm not sure what you mean here. > I've seen some problems with ghostscript-fonts (because I don't > understand why it wont work with ghostscript-afpl) and > print/cups-pstoraster (were I've got it depend on > print/ghostscript-afpl but wasn't able to check whether it's > working right or not). >=20 > I like the way like lang/php4 handles the right port-dependency, > but I strongly agree to Joe Markus Clarke who wrote to ports/52674 > that such an include should be dependent port related and not > be for portmgr in Mk/. I would like to see a bsd.ghostscript.mk, > but not in Mk/ but in sth. like print/ghostscript. What would such a bsd.ghostscript.mk contain? Kris --fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/JRQ/Wry0BWjoQKURAlpxAJ9mJnO7jKuVmpIBMLQgdnjX/ggbgQCgo9uG 1LXXWTj/D2T6llDFQcYhDWY= =+w3V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030728121703.GA63021>