On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:39 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 09:46, Taylor R Campbell wrote:Actually, it occurs to me that it's not really necessary to declare a dependency -- that it would suffice for the variant to have a command that checks for the existence of an executable by some name, and to refuse to continue if this command fails.I haven't really followed why all this complexity with the multiple scheme ports is required -- I realize you tried to spell it out in your first email but it was a bit much for me at the moment.But assuming it really is required, then yes, this is the method that occurred to me as well: just test for the file's existence in, say, the pre-fetch phase, and fail if not found. I don't, however, know the portfile syntax for checking for a file's existence.There was some recent discussion about a `ui_fatal' command by which to fail, although I understand that it was simply a proposal not yet implemented. Does this sound plausible, however?Not really needed, though, either. Just do ui_error "the message" followed by exit 1. And, again, do this in the pre-fetch phase.
Calling "exit" from a Portfile will cause any front-end using the dports API to exit, no? That seems bad form.
-landonf
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
