Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:48:06 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> To: Ade Lovett <ade@lovett.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: passing arguments to *_DEPENDS Message-ID: <m3isvgbifd.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <BA786D6D.2915F%ade@lovett.com> (Ade Lovett's message of "Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:08:29 -0600") References: <BA786D6D.2915F%ade@lovett.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ade Lovett <ade@lovett.com> writes: > I believe we need to rethink the concept of ports either being thin (minimal > number of dependencies) or thick (maximal dependencies), and work on a > generic optional-dependency system that individual ports may use. Should such a rethink happen, I have two ideas: 1. some ports can go with "one of a choice" of ports, such as bogofilter, which COULD work with db3, db4 or db41. It currently uses db4 because this gives the most robust build process (*), but fall-back dependencies would be nice. 2. Debian's packaging system knows the above "or" (which could be worked around with PROVIDES=, Postfix and Exim could set PROVIDES=smtp_daemon for instance) and also knows suggestions and recommendations which are not "necessary" dependencies, but recommendations "useful to have"; for example, mutt could "suggest" lbdb, or pine could "suggest" (pico or nano) and pilot. *) The db3 build goofs up the dependencies if db3 AND db4 are installed when bogofilter is compiled. bogofilter configure.in issue, not ports' fault. -- Matthias Andree 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?m3isvgbifd.fsf>