From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 20 17:49:08 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D86106566C; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:49:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gx0-f182.google.com (mail-gx0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB748FC16; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:49:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggnp1 with SMTP id p1so7230825ggn.13 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:49:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Nz73peB78jbbGOkph8ycz2qDwME+14GFNGPb9EM7Nvo=; b=nD9t3l9ffTDpQae9QNI+z5hq4EKv1vLGM+K2FyVyIIb5yL+4dqrjcbb3tMtgxGqePC U9O5H7YdxpxS2ZMsdGwK+BChduknXnWEPrjPz+q/fNd5+/WKqGC9bQEtgN0M9bgVRiFe vjKbCKZ9ymr5y6/fSXd0p94iy5fUWwdw7A/Wk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.88.163 with SMTP id bh3mr3300558igb.28.1324403346860; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:49:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.199.18 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:49:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.199.18 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:49:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201112181751.pBIHpivv027591@repoman.freebsd.org> <4EEF0AF1.20501@FreeBSD.org> <4EEFD2B8.1050006@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:49:06 +0000 Message-ID: From: Chris Rees To: Doug Barton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-xfce@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils/xfce4-utils Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:49:08 -0000 On 20 Dec 2011 06:53, "Chris Rees" wrote: > > On 20 Dec 2011 00:11, "Doug Barton" wrote: > > > > On 12/19/2011 02:03, Chris Rees wrote: > > > > > > On 19 Dec 2011 09:59, "Doug Barton" > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Thanks, that's 1/3 of the job done. :) The problem is that the current > > >> OPTION creates the false idea that the only way you can lock your screen > > >> is to use xlockmore. > > >> > > >> Perhaps you missed my followup where I mentioned that the next step > > >> would be to add an OPTION for xscreensaver as well, and the logic to > > >> avoid having them both defined. > > > > > > I'll look at that later. > > > > Thanks. In answer to your question avoiding having both enabled would be > > nice since it avoids duplicate, unnecessary redundancy. > > > > >> Better yet would be to detect if one or the other is already installed, > > >> and default the OPTIONS accordingly. > > > > > > Autodetection in ports? No thanks! > > > > I didn't suggest autodetecting for the dependencies, I suggested it for > > the OPTIONS. That's been done for a long time, and ideally should be how > > it's always done. > > Ok... a pointer on how that's done would be good. > > The only way I can think of would be: > > .if exists(${LOCALBASE}/bin/xlock) > OPTIONS+= XLOCK "Use xlock for 'lock screen'" on > .else > OPTIONS+= XLOCK "Use xlock for 'lock screen'" off > .endif > > which would be great if LOCALBASE were actually defined before > bsd.port.options.mk. > > I can't see a way to do this. Do you have an example port? > Ok, so anyone have a better way to autodetect default options than this? http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/xfce4-utils-xlock-dependency.diff I don't like this, but if enough people are desperate and fellow xfce guys don't object I suppose it works. Chris