Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:18:41 +0400 From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@FreeBSD.org> To: Sergey Skvortsov <skv@protey.ru> Cc: vd@datamax.bg, Adam Weinberger <adamw@magnesium.net>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The right way to depend on a package's extra feature Message-ID: <42F6F941.4010109@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <42F4E779.9030605@protey.ru> References: <20050805070513.GA60681@sinanica.bg.datamax> <42F310D2.7020200@magnesium.net> <20050805073617.GB60681@sinanica.bg.datamax> <42F4E779.9030605@protey.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sergey Skvortsov wrote:
> Just (c) patch /usr/ports/Mk/* to support:
> RUN_DEPENDS=/path/to/check/file:${PORTSDIR}/category/portname:target%WITH_FEATURE_1%FEATURE_2=mydb
> or even:
> RUN_DEPENDS=/path/to/check/file:${PORTSDIR}/category/portname%WITH_FEATURE_1%FEATURE_2=mydb
>
> (IMO delimiter symbol '%' is aesthetic enough)
>
> In such case dependency should be patched/builded/installed as:
>
> cd category/portname && make WITH_FEATURE_1=yes FEATURE_2=mydb target
>
> Of course, it is not a very trivial patchset. And currently this approach
But it quite possible though.
> does not support packages. OPTIONS are not installed with packages - so
> there is no possibility/sence to parse them. I think a file like
> /var/db/pkg/portname/+FEATURES would be introduced, where OPTIONS is subset
> of FEATURES. Exact sematics of FEATURES is fuzzy on the first glance, but we
> can draw up a formal specification :)
>
Yep, it should be implemented first. But I'm not sure what is plans for
pkg_install tools.
I've started making a patch for pkg_install but stopped when found out
some guys planned to rewrite the tools (flz@ and will@ have some work done).
--
Sem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F6F941.4010109>