Daniele Maccari wrote: > Jonatan Liljedahl wrote: >> Michael Homer wrote: >> ... >> >>> In most cases, dependencies are autodetected by configure correctly >>> and no change to the Recipe file will be necessary. In that case, the >>> with_<flag> variables should *not* be used only to convey redundant >>> information, and the flag should just be listed appropriately in >>> Dependencies. Note that this means that unlike Gentoo's, our flags are >>> not exclusive: their support may be compiled in even if the flag is >>> disabled, if the dependency is installed and autodetected correctly. >>> Compilations using ChrootCompile will not experience this effect, as >>> the dependency will be left out of the chroot environment. >>> >> I don't like this, I might very well have some library installed just >> because a few programs *need* it to compile, while I still want to avoid >> using it in all apps that can manage without it. >> >> It may be libraries that I don't like, or that introduces >> incompatibilities with other functions in the app (like karts or esd), >> or that are deprecated and which I'm trying to get rid of (like GTK 1.x). >> >> This is easily fixed in the recipe: >> >> configure_options=( "--disable-gtk1" ) >> with_gtk1="--enable-gtk1" >> >> > I agree on this point, for the same reasons. Anyway I think using the > solution suggested > by Jonatan can easily become cumbersome. It would be theoretically > necessary to disable > every single package which we don't want to be detected by the recipe, > and parallel to this, > adding a with_<useflag>. > Hence I believe it'd be better to actually take care of this by using > some different format, > something like > > with_useflags=( "gtk1?--enable-gtk:--disable-gtk" > "foo?--with-foo:--without-foo" ... )
Or something like this: with_gtk1=( "--enable-gtk" "--disable-gtk" ) or more self-documenting: useflag_gtk1=( "with=--enable-gtk" "without=--disable-gtk" ) Those would be easy parsable by bash itself... And as said in previous post, we also need a not_using_<flag>() function for more complex cases. > which I think could be parsed in a convenient way. Every element means > just what the C-like syntax says: "if we want gtk to be enabled, add > --enable-gtk, --disable-gtk otherwise". > Then for every useflag defined in the Dependencies file with a match in > the user's preferences, > we would only have to find it in the array and using the correct option > thereafter. > > On the other hand, it would add some complexity to scripts, mainly due > to the need to implement the parsing for the new array. > > What do you think? Maybe these are just the ravings of a lunatic, dunno :D > > _______________________________________________ > gobolinux-devel mailing list > gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org > http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel -- /Jonatan [ http://kymatica.com ] _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
