Dealing with options in dependent ports
I'm working on a port that has an option for a build_depends on another port. If that option is selected, the dependent port MUST be built with an option that is not selected by default. Is there a way to either force that option to be selected in the dependent port? Or, failing that, is it possible to pop up a message warning the installer that they must select that option before building the dependent port or, if they've already installed it without the option, they must deinstall and reinstall after selecting that option? -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. *** It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead. Thomas Jefferson There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them. George Orwell ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Dealing with options in dependent ports
Hello, Le ven 30 nov 12 à 16:36:32 +0100, Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com écrivait : I'm working on a port that has an option for a build_depends on another port. If that option is selected, the dependent port MUST be built with an option that is not selected by default. Is there a way to either force that option to be selected in the dependent port? Or, failing that, is it possible to pop up a message warning the installer that they must select that option before building the dependent port or, if they've already installed it without the option, they must deinstall and reinstall after selecting that option? I'd suggest to make a slave port where you force the required option. However, to enforce the right dependency, this option have to produce a different plist. -- Th. Thomas. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Dealing with options in dependent ports
Thierry Thomas thie...@freebsd.org wrote: Hello, Le ven 30 nov 12 à 16:36:32 +0100, Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com écrivait : I'm working on a port that has an option for a build_depends on another port. If that option is selected, the dependent port MUST be built with an option that is not selected by default. Is there a way to either force that option to be selected in the dependent port? Or, failing that, is it possible to pop up a message warning the installer that they must select that option before building the dependent port or, if they've already installed it without the option, they must deinstall and reinstall after selecting that option? I'd suggest to make a slave port where you force the required option. However, to enforce the right dependency, this option have to produce a different plist. -- Th. Thomas. I was in the same situation with dns/ldns requiring python bindings which are not built by default. I solved the problem by creating a stub port dns/py-ldns. Emanuel ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Dealing with options in dependent ports
--On November 30, 2012 4:47:40 PM +0100 Thierry Thomas thie...@freebsd.org wrote: Hello, Le ven 30 nov 12 à 16:36:32 +0100, Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com écrivait : I'm working on a port that has an option for a build_depends on another port. If that option is selected, the dependent port MUST be built with an option that is not selected by default. Is there a way to either force that option to be selected in the dependent port? Or, failing that, is it possible to pop up a message warning the installer that they must select that option before building the dependent port or, if they've already installed it without the option, they must deinstall and reinstall after selecting that option? I'd suggest to make a slave port where you force the required option. However, to enforce the right dependency, this option have to produce a different plist. Thanks. I think that's probably the right answer. -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. *** It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead. Thomas Jefferson There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them. George Orwell ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Dealing with options in dependent ports
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Thierry Thomas thie...@freebsd.org wrote: However, to enforce the right dependency, this option have to produce a different plist. Really? Isn't enough to depend on the package name instead of a file? -- Alberto Villa, FreeBSD committer avi...@freebsd.org http://people.FreeBSD.org/~avilla ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Dealing with options in dependent ports
Le ven 30 nov 12 à 19:07:20 +0100, Alberto Villa avi...@freebsd.org écrivait : On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Thierry Thomas thie...@freebsd.org wrote: However, to enforce the right dependency, this option have to produce a different plist. Really? Isn't enough to depend on the package name instead of a file? xxx_DEPENDS= specific_file:slave_ports -- Th. Thomas. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Dealing with options in dependent ports
--On November 30, 2012 7:07:20 PM +0100 Alberto Villa avi...@freebsd.org
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Thierry Thomas thie...@freebsd.org
wrote:
However, to enforce the right dependency, this option have to produce a
different plist.
Really? Isn't enough to depend on the package name instead of a file?
No. The dependency installs files that are not otherwise installed, so the
pkg-plist has to reflect that. Here's how I did it in the port I just
created a slave for.
Created this section in the main port's Makefile:
.if defined(SLAVE)
OPTIONS_DEFINE+=BROCCOLI
OPTIONS_DEFAULT+= BROCCOLI
BROCCOLI_DESC= Build support for libbroccoli communications
.endif
This adds the option and enforces it being selected if you install the
slave port.
Then created this section in the main port's Makefile:
.if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MBROCCOLI}
PLIST_SUB+= BROCCOLI=
pre-configure:
(cd ${WRKSRC}/aux/broccoli ./configure)
pre-build:
(cd ${WRKSRC}/aux/broccoli ${MAKE})
post-build:
patch ${BUILD_WRKSRC}/cmake_install.cmake ${FILESDIR}/broccoli.patch
.else
PLIST_SUB+= BROCCOLI=@comment
.endif
The PLIST_SUB section allows you to add files to the pkg-plist that are
provisional, based on the install of the slave port.
Then the pkg_plist sub has the files included with the macro:
%%BROCCOLI%%include/broccoli.h
%%BROCCOLI%%lib/libbinpac.a
%%BROCCOLI%%lib/libbroccoli.a
%%BROCCOLI%%lib/libbroccoli.so
%%BROCCOLI%%lib/libbroccoli.so.5
%%BROCCOLI%%lib/libbroccoli.so.5.1.0
Those only get removed if the option was selected, so deinstall won't throw
errors if you install the main port without that option.
--
Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not those of my employer.
***
It is as useless to argue with those who have
renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead. Thomas Jefferson
There are some ideas so wrong that only a very
intelligent person could believe in them. George Orwell
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
