Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:02:19 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) To: cracauer@cons.org Cc: cracauer@cons.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, vanilla@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Some -devel ports break autoconf (gtk11 spotted) Message-ID: <199808270102.SAA10629@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <19980826131115.C18242@cons.org> (message from Martin Cracauer on Wed, 26 Aug 1998 13:11:15 %2B0200)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* What became out of this?
I don't know. :<
* I am curious what people think of a $(PREFIX-DEVEL) directory tree, at
* least for application-building parts (libraries, includefiles), so
* that building applications against -current libaries becomes less of a
* nightmare. -developemnt applications can be installed to the main
* $(PREFIX) again, at least their binaries, so that people don't have to
* change their $PATH.
Sorry, I don't understand autoconf well. Please forgive me for the
dumb questions.
* > * Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:22:41 +0200
* > * From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org>
* > *
* > *
* > * When having gtk and gtk11 installed, you have gtk.m4 and gtk11.m4 in
* > * /usr/local/share/aclocal.
* > *
* > * This breaks autoconf (more specially, aclocal), since both files
* > * define variables of the same name.
* > *
* > * The proper fix in the line of the usual stable/current port way would
* > * be to change the names of all variables in gtk11.m4 from gtk to
* > * gtk11. This would put a lot of work on the shoulders for everyone
* > * trying to compile something against gtk11.
* > *
* > * So I think it would be more wise to create a
* > * $(PREFIX)/share/aclocal.current/ directory, where ports with possibly
* > * conflicting aclocal parts could place them and maintainers of
* > * depending ports could easily address them.
Specifically, which port are you talking about here? Does gtk11 put
its gtk11.m4 in share/aclocal.current and gtk put its gtk.m4 in
share/aclocal? And how do we fix other ports? (Why are they reading
both files anyway?)
* > * While I'm at it, I also though it would be a good idea to create a
* > * whoel $(PREFIX-DEVEL) directory structure, so that accessing two
* > * version of one port would be easier. That is obviously limited to two
* > * versions of a port, but would make compiling non-port software against
* > * devel ports (i.e. GNOME against gtk11) much easier. Has this been
* > * discussed before?
You mean have something like /usr/local/devel where ports that have
potential conflicts with system utilities (lesstif, octave, ncurses
come to mind) install by default? That's an idea, but I'm not sure
what that means in terms of two conflicting ports. (For instance, we
put gtk in ${PREFIX} and gtk11 in ${PREFIX_DEVEL}, and are we going to
swap them when gtk11 becomes the default? Won't that mess up people
who already have one or the other installed and just try to rebuild a
dependent port? The depednency rules should be taking care of this.)
Again, an example might be helpful for the clueless.... ;)
Satoshi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808270102.SAA10629>