Alberto Villa <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Raphael Kubo da Costa > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'd rather to the opposite and force the port not to depend on >> libinotify, which is less intrusive. > > Why? We usually add dependencies instead of removing them.
I'd argue that we only do that when the dependencies are necessary. libinotify looks like something that should have been part of the kernel, not in a separate library -- all ports which use it need to patch sources because inotify doesn't require any additional libraries on Linux, and I think this is very suboptimal. >> Also, looking at the PR, it looks like sys/inotify.h was already being >> found even without changing CMAKE_REQUIRED_INCLUDES, so only the linking >> part seems necessary. > > It isn't: without it sys/inotify.h is not detected. The user probably > had some non-standard configuration. OK. _______________________________________________ kde-freebsd mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-freebsd See also http://freebsd.kde.org/ for latest information
