On Nov 2, 2010, at 01:45 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: […]
> It sounds like the pdf variant does everything the html variant > does, and then a little more. So why not make the pdf variant require > the html variant, instead of making them conflict? Especially since > the html variant is selected by default. Logically I agree that your request makes sense, but I need some conceptual help here due to my limited knowledge of Portfiles. The 'html' variant works by patching the SBCL source to not install the full documentation. The 'pdf' variant needs this code not to be patched to execute. I didn't see a way to temporally order the execution of variant code-blocks, so I didn't know how to guarantee the 'pdf' variant always "undoes" the patch if both variants are specified. If there is no way to temporally order variant clauses, I guess the way around this is to find a Portfile phase after all the variants have been executed to cleanup the corner cases. With my submission of the sbcl-1.0.44 update yesterday, the 'html' variant is no longer the default. How would the "grayer beards" than mine of MacPorts suggest I tackle Ryan's suggestion? -- "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare to it now." _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
