Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 12:36:58 +0530 From: wahjava@gmail.com (Ashish SHUKLA) To: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: split xcbgen from xcb-proto Message-ID: <86hbzwvzsd.fsf@chateau.d.lf> In-Reply-To: <4A01C995.1080808@icyb.net.ua> (Andriy Gapon's message of "Wed, 06 May 2009 20:32:05 %2B0300") References: <4A01C995.1080808@icyb.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Andriy Gapon writes: > It seems that it is a kind of bloating to require python with X (even if = only a > small portion of it is needed). Unfortunately upstream guys maintain xcb-= proto and > xcbgen in the same distribution. But a trend among packgers seem to be to= split > these two into separate packages. I wonder if anybody is working on the s= ame for > our ports. I don't think splitting into two ports will be a good idea. Instead I recommend using the PYTHON knob to install python stuff if user requires it. > From the point of view of the port itself it seems to be as easy building= only one > subdirectory of the project, e.g.: > http://cvsweb.se.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/x11/xcb-proto/patch= es/patch-ae?rev=3D1.1 > But it seems to be a more challenging task to decide which "higher level"= ports > should depend on xcb-proto alone and which need xcbgen too. Yes, thats a challenging task. If more people require this, then I can add a PYTHON option to the xcb-proto to build/skip python related stuff in xcb-proto package. > --=20 > Andriy Gapon =2D-=20 Ashish SHUKLA --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkoD2hUACgkQHy+EEHYuXnT3GACg5PCzbNFTFHK/Z7z6WEXh4I/K vkMAoK3iGM6WlkAK18MwxFpu9Gmb2rxX =DIfP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86hbzwvzsd.fsf>