Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:53:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <ac199@hwcn.org> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: comments on X dependency patch? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980729003946.21751A-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <199807272316.QAA14892@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Satoshi Asami wrote: > Here's a sample patch (warning, untested!). Basically it renames > USE_X11 (which always didn't really mean what it says) to USE_X_PREFIX > and adds a renewed USE_X11 meaning "requires X libraries". While I > was there, I got rid of NO_CONFIGURE and NO_PATCH, which never meant > anything. I say go for it. Not only will this help prevent needless USE_X11s, but it will also make Sue Blake happy. :) What sort of changes are required in sysinstall and/or pkg_add? Of course, if any changes are needed to either, the standard "upgrade your ports subsystem" package will need to take those changes into account, too. > +.elif defined(NO_CONFIGURE) > +IGNORE= "defines NO_CONFIGURE, which is obsoleted" > +.elif defined(NO_PATCH) > +IGNORE= "defines NO_PATCH, which is obsoleted" Are these two really really needed? I can't think of a way that a port defining NO_CONFIGURE (or NO_PATCH) will be broken by this patch, and so far as removing all the NO_CONFIGUREs (and NO_PATCH) from the existing ports, there are better ways (surely I don't need to suggest man's best friend, "grep" ;-). Standard portlint(1) can prevent any new NO_CONFIGUREs (and NO_PATCHs). Everyone does use portlint(1) before they import a new port, right? (<ahem>) -- This .sig is not innovative, witty, or profund. 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?Pine.BSF.3.96.980729003946.21751A-100000>