Then maybe we could have an option to pass down default variants? On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Bradley Giesbrecht <pixi...@macports.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Daniel J. Luke <dl...@geeklair.net> > wrote: > >> On Apr 10, 2016, at 4:01 AM, Takeshi Enomoto <take...@macports.org> >> wrote: >> > If there is a reason behind treating default_variants and manually set >> variants, >> > I’d like to know. >> >> I'm not sure what the initial reasoning was, but I think the current >> behavior is correct. >> >> When a port is installed as a dependency of some other port, it should be >> installed the same way as if it were installed manually first. >> >> ie. A requires B: >> >> port install A >> and >> >> port install B && port install A >> >> should result in the same final install. >> > > On Apr 11, 2016, at 12:29 PM, David Strubbe <dstru...@macports.org> wrote: > > Well, that is not the current behavior if a variant is specified manually. > What happens is: > > port install A +var > > does > > port install B +var && port install A +var. > > Why do you think it would be inappropriate to do that for default variants? > > > Binaries are only provided for default variants so you might loose binary > packages for dependencies due to variants you don’t care about in the > dependency. > > > Regards, > Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla) > > >
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
