On 2008/11/11 11:20, Tobias Ulmer wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 09:27:56PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: > > Shouldn't the updated ports be changed to work with either lib? We > > can do that, right? And a conflict added so that glut and freeglut > > can't be installed together before pkg_add complains about collisions? > > > > > > Hmm, that would mean: > > ports: Depend on A or B, take whatever is installed. That would also > imply that the api must be the same, which i'm not 100% sure. > > Some ports might prefer freeglut (because it has better fullscreen > support appearantly). > > packages: Can depend on A or B, but in case A is not available in > $PKG_PATH, install B. > > Conflict markers... easy. > > Is glut worth that? And is the ports tree/pkg_add that flexible? Marc? >
Ports/packages can have a set of alternative dependencies (see packages-specs(7) about DEPENDENCIES RESOLUTION) but from http://osdir.com/ml/os.apple.fink.tracker/2005-04/msg00183.html it looks like the libraries are not a direct drop-in replacement. Also freeglut has additional functions, it's possible some ports will change their behaviour at configure time in order to make use of them. So as far as I can tell, to be safe we would need to: - add flavours for depending ports - rename the freeglut library or place in a different directory to avoid conflicts with glut during bulk build - modify depending ports to handle the above (the symlink suggestion in the fink mail won't help for bulk builds) It's possible but there would have to be a very strong reason to keep both libraries in order for it to be worthwhile...
