Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 01:00:59 -0700 From: Ade Lovett <ade@freebsd.org> To: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Disabling dependency on esound in ports builds Message-ID: <24E0B4F7-C17F-4038-A4D4-3936FE3BF4E0@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20050520074620.GB95023@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> References: <20050518234933.05e2584b@dolphin.local.net> <20050519183922.GB6978@xor.obsecurity.org> <CFC68145-1928-4984-BCB5-6019CB893C89@FreeBSD.org> <20050520074620.GB95023@pcwin002.win.tue.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 20, 2005, at 00:46 , Stijn Hoop wrote: > I do know the reason why this kind of code was added: it was > considered incorrect behaviour that port A would NOT automatically > pick up support for library B if it was installed by the user. That's more an artefact of configure scripts especially being coded to simply check for the mere existence of a library in order to use it, instead of the more correct approach of explicitly requesting -- enable-foo (or equivalent). Bringing in all the necessary hacks to only activate extra code if the user (or port Makefile) has explicitly requested it is (at best) an awkward task. It's considerably easier to give up and go with the exists() constructs which, as I've mentioned, do (in most cases) at least register the dependency. > [...] and considering reproducible package building This right here hits the nail right on the head. exists() constructs, acting as the bandaids they are around poorly written configuration scripts, can, and do, cause problems for building and distributing packages in anything but an absolute virgin environment. -aDe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24E0B4F7-C17F-4038-A4D4-3936FE3BF4E0>