Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:29:52 -0600 From: Ade Lovett <ade@lovett.com> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gd requiring X (was Re: skip requires X?) Message-ID: <20000203162952.B15558@lovett.com> In-Reply-To: <vqcog9y874y.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>; from asami@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 10:37:17AM -0800 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002012041440.10588-100000@cornflake.nickelkid.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002012126490.305-100000@picnic.mat.net> <20000201213431.G79328@jade.chc-chimes.com> <20000201213227.A279@shale.csir.co.za> <vqcog9y874y.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 10:37:17AM -0800, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
>
> Figuring out the chain of dependencies could be messy though. We need
> to make sure the user won't end up with a gnome-disabled foo and
> gnome-enabled bar when bar depends on foo (or something like that).
For packages, it should be a (relatively) straightforward hack such
that if we're installing "bar-gnome", we should first try to install
"foo-gnome" as a dependent, falling back to plain old "foo"
(possibly with a warning) if one isn't found.
For ports, bar-gnome simply has a dependency on ${PORTSDIR}/xxx/foo-gnome,
which sets WITH_GNOME=YES and includes xxx/foo
The big disadvantage I can see, especially for those ports with basic
X11, GTK _and_ GNOME personalities is a fairly major increase in the
number of ports.
It would be useful to have the infrastructure in place for such
multiple-personality ports sooner rather than later. We're starting
to get a large number of ports that have optional dependencies on one
thing or another, all done in a variety of different ways :(
-aDe
--
Ade Lovett, Austin, TX.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000203162952.B15558>