On 20 Dec 2011 00:11, "Doug Barton" <do...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 02:03, Chris Rees wrote:
> >
> > On 19 Dec 2011 09:59, "Doug Barton" <do...@freebsd.org
> > <mailto:do...@freebsd.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks, that's 1/3 of the job done. :)  The problem is that the current
> >> OPTION creates the false idea that the only way you can lock your screen
> >> is to use xlockmore.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you missed my followup where I mentioned that the next step
> >> would be to add an OPTION for xscreensaver as well, and the logic to
> >> avoid having them both defined.
> >
> > I'll look at that later.
> Thanks. In answer to your question avoiding having both enabled would be
> nice since it avoids duplicate, unnecessary redundancy.
> >> Better yet would be to detect if one or the other is already installed,
> >> and default the OPTIONS accordingly.
> >
> > Autodetection in ports? No thanks!
> I didn't suggest autodetecting for the dependencies, I suggested it for
> the OPTIONS. That's been done for a long time, and ideally should be how
> it's always done.

Ok... a pointer on how that's done would be good.

The only way I can think of would be:

.if exists(${LOCALBASE}/bin/xlock)
OPTIONS+= XLOCK "Use xlock for 'lock screen'" on
OPTIONS+= XLOCK "Use xlock for 'lock screen'" off

which would be great if LOCALBASE were actually defined before

I can't see a way to do this.  Do you have an example port?

freebsd-xfce@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xfce-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to