Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:06:35 +0200 From: Jens Rehsack <rehsack@liwing.de> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/36112: [PATCH] New feature for whole ports tree: GS_PORT variable Message-ID: <3F251FDB.2020708@liwing.de> In-Reply-To: <20030728124927.GA27827@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <200307272105.h6RL5BTo000730@helo.liwing.de> <20030727221222.GA93833@huckfinn.arved.de> <20030728114351.GA53070@rot13.obsecurity.org> <3F25126C.4030501@liwing.de> <20030728121703.GA63021@rot13.obsecurity.org> <3F25192B.1090502@liwing.de> <20030728124927.GA27827@rot13.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28.07.2003 14:49, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 02:38:03PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>
>> I mean that I see the requirement of checking for -nox11, but I
>> don't want to introduce it overall, because I see that the
>> configure scripts of mail/courier and graphics/ImageMagic check
>> for it separately. So I wanted to hear what the port experts say
>> to that problem.
>
> That's not really a problem; ports that have their own optional X11
> dependencies can (and should) have their WITHOUT_X11 checks to disable
> this, but there's no need for it to also add -nox11 to the ghostscript
> port. The use would just set WITHOUT_X11=foo to turn off x11 support
> in ImageMagick, and GHOSTSCRIPT_PORT=print/ghostscript-gnu-x11 to make
> it depend on a non-X11 ghostscript variant.
The prblem is here:
# cd /usr/port/textproc/latex2html
# env WITHOUT_X11 make build install clean
--> this action will build and install latex2html's current
version but it will depent on print/ghostscript-[a-z]
instead of print/ghostscript-[a-z]-nox11 as it should.
A portupgrade -fa (without having WITHOUT_X11 defined)
will re-build ghostscript with X11 support this time.
--> A check for the -nox11 ghostscript port is an easy way
and should be done by the included script.
>> >What would such a bsd.ghostscript.mk contain?
>>
>> Not much, just a check for the right ghostscript-port (gnu/afpl,
>> (-nox11){0,1}). And maybe some common things from
>> ghostscript-*/Makefile (must be checked before).
>
> Unless there's something substantial to be done, there's not a big
> reason to break it out of bsd.port.mk into its own makefile.
Hm, different people, different meanings. I agree to the politic
of Joe Markus Clarke. I like smaller, easier provable files instead
of monolitic, hard maintainable ones.
But as a portmgr you really know what you do, so I'm not in a
position to disagree :-)
> Kris
Jens
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F251FDB.2020708>