From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 28 06:06:38 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF91437B401 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 06:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.liwing.de (mail.liwing.de [213.70.188.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE8043F3F for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 06:06:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rehsack@liwing.de) Received: (qmail 72882 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2003 13:06:35 -0000 Received: from stingray.liwing.de (HELO liwing.de) ([213.70.188.164]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.liwing.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 28 Jul 2003 13:06:35 -0000 Message-ID: <3F251FDB.2020708@liwing.de> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:06:35 +0200 From: Jens Rehsack Organization: LiWing IT-Services User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: de-de, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kennaway References: <200307272105.h6RL5BTo000730@helo.liwing.de> <20030727221222.GA93833@huckfinn.arved.de> <20030728114351.GA53070@rot13.obsecurity.org> <3F25126C.4030501@liwing.de> <20030728121703.GA63021@rot13.obsecurity.org> <3F25192B.1090502@liwing.de> <20030728124927.GA27827@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20030728124927.GA27827@rot13.obsecurity.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: ports@FreeBSD.org cc: Tilman Linneweh cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/36112: [PATCH] New feature for whole ports tree: GS_PORT variable X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:06:39 -0000 On 28.07.2003 14:49, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 02:38:03PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: > >> I mean that I see the requirement of checking for -nox11, but I >> don't want to introduce it overall, because I see that the >> configure scripts of mail/courier and graphics/ImageMagic check >> for it separately. So I wanted to hear what the port experts say >> to that problem. > > That's not really a problem; ports that have their own optional X11 > dependencies can (and should) have their WITHOUT_X11 checks to disable > this, but there's no need for it to also add -nox11 to the ghostscript > port. The use would just set WITHOUT_X11=foo to turn off x11 support > in ImageMagick, and GHOSTSCRIPT_PORT=print/ghostscript-gnu-x11 to make > it depend on a non-X11 ghostscript variant. The prblem is here: # cd /usr/port/textproc/latex2html # env WITHOUT_X11 make build install clean --> this action will build and install latex2html's current version but it will depent on print/ghostscript-[a-z] instead of print/ghostscript-[a-z]-nox11 as it should. A portupgrade -fa (without having WITHOUT_X11 defined) will re-build ghostscript with X11 support this time. --> A check for the -nox11 ghostscript port is an easy way and should be done by the included script. >> >What would such a bsd.ghostscript.mk contain? >> >> Not much, just a check for the right ghostscript-port (gnu/afpl, >> (-nox11){0,1}). And maybe some common things from >> ghostscript-*/Makefile (must be checked before). > > Unless there's something substantial to be done, there's not a big > reason to break it out of bsd.port.mk into its own makefile. Hm, different people, different meanings. I agree to the politic of Joe Markus Clarke. I like smaller, easier provable files instead of monolitic, hard maintainable ones. But as a portmgr you really know what you do, so I'm not in a position to disagree :-) > Kris Jens