Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:38:48 +0200 From: "Alexey Shuvaev" <shuvaev@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what is gio-fam? Message-ID: <20080415073848.GA802@wep4017.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> In-Reply-To: <op.t9lxegs69aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> References: <200804082143.06208.mi%2Bmill@aldan.algebra.com> <1207707476.17121.53.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20080413155908.GB23437@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <20080414085009.GA884@wep4017.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <op.t9lwdgr99aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <op.t9lxegs69aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:31:18AM -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:09:06 -0500, Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:50:09 -0500, Alexey Shuvaev >> <shuvaev@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote: >> >> <snip> >>> IMHO gio-fam-backend should not be implicit dependency. Otherwise why >>> not to install all existing non-conflicting libraries just to ease >>> maintainer's life :-> >>> FWIW x11-toolkits/gtkdatabox2 (PR 116120) do not need gio-fam-backend. >> >> Well, all ports should depend on gio-fam-backend. The gio is included and >> part of glib20. marcus had to split gio out of glib20 package to avoid >> circle dependency of glib20 -> gamin (FAM replacement) -> glib20. If >> marcus doesn't split and you guys will have that gio library anyway. Thanks, somewhat much clearer now. I had some feeling that gio-fam-backend is freebsd specific. How many chances are there to account for existence of gamin upstream? (So to avoid glib -> gamin -> glib circular dependency) > > Uh, I should have check in glib20 and gio-fam-backend before I made that > comment. I thought that gio (libgio-2.0.so) is in gio-fam-backend, but not > it's in glib20. The gio-fam-backend only installs libgiofam.so and FAM > support is option in glib configure. I don't think it will be easy to make > optional (maybe I am wrong) with that split. Remove gio-fam-backend > dependency is going to hurt some users if they want some missing fuction(s) > of it. > So configure option is not enough. Does separating gio-fam-backend by original developers solve the problem better? Alexey.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080415073848.GA802>