From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 30 11:26:58 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BD2431F; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E40652001; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:26:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id h18so2711715igc.6 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:26:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eeHWmM34sShGwi0HBhBKghJ1h18d+AjPWofZQjRzstg=; b=QzuQL9ODf/fNQ5AB36+SHV06CppH3lBrptXT4KGLwqK9/XF/0y77Ate139j5xaKTW/ yk2EYNLAZejAbySj8YPG5510B872w4lmAeCM9LU2clB1mEQbClha1++RXTDx9i//DIiX iLVpJYzlhgg7JNrNUlZkvvd5oH9FYtQxFms90E03xIUhkvZ9P8L6/SMZGUXyzQtLJXaU jVmJFYY4jL3z4OhF+znvIc1X5PWJccfa/3h6Z8P3bLNDl+yL8IFXzJ3SDb6J/IAaztLk CPh+8yUVxGCYydW2fJ8uaSAuYy6+v8S4rQj8KBvtGfT8LOdXEkJgW4IJOsbKXs6RpR7d 0m+Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.50.175 with SMTP id d15mr6353864igo.35.1406719617272; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: vrwmiller@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.165.73 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:26:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7fcae6de0f31f8728897beca50739fb6@dweimer.net> References: <7fcae6de0f31f8728897beca50739fb6@dweimer.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 07:26:57 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3UrdObhSzxwFWtsbuKHgoGpGlLQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: Build Ports Without X11? From: Rick Miller To: dweimer@dweimer.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18 Cc: FreeBSD Questions , owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:26:58 -0000 Hi... On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:23 PM, dweimer wrote: > On 07/29/2014 2:04 pm, Rick Miller wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am using Poudriere to bulk build packages and encountered a failure that >> resulted in the program skipping a couple ports. The failure occurred due >> to an X11 error. However, the expectation is that all ports would build >> without X11 thus negating the need to compile and build all the X11 >> dependancies for various packages. >> >> Despite the make.conf (shown below) specifying WITHOUT_X11, all these >> ports >> built with X11 support anyway. >> >> I'm pretty sure I must be doing something wrong and hoping that someone >> might be able to lead me to the solution that will compile any port >> without >> X11 support. >> >> [snip] > > > I believe it should be: > > OPTIONS_UNSET="X11" on newer systems. > > However, it appears to not be pulling in the X11 option, but rather the > GTK2 option. > > perhaps adding OPTIONS_UNSET="GTK2" would work, or just simply use the > vim-lite port instead of vim, I do this on all my servers (of course none > are running a GUI), though I haven't read through the Makefiles to be sure > what else beyond GUI components isn't included in the lite port versus the > full port, there's a chance it may drop off something else you are wanting. I changed the /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/10_0-amd64-make.conf as follows, but the resulting behavior was the same as before making the change. Further changing it to remove "WITHOUT_X11" caused poudriere to build an additional package. # cat 10_0-amd64-make.conf WITH_PKGNG=YES PERL_VERSION=5.16.3 WITHOUT_X11=YES OPTIONS_UNSET="X11 GTK2" I observe no behavior indicating OPTIONS_UNSET worked, despite the change. It's apparent poudriere *is* using the file as removing WITHOUT_X11 did change poudriere's behavior. Though adding OPTIONS_UNSET did not appear to change the behavior. Is there a way to verify poudriere is implementing these options when building? -- Take care Rick Miller