Re: Any way to add USES clause depending on two options without including bsd.port.options.mk?

+--On 24 juin 2016 05:59:23 +0200 Jan Beich wrote: | Yuri writes: | |> I have two port options: GUI NLS. |> |> I would like to have USES=gettext only when both GUI and NLS are "on". |> |> If it was only one option, say NLS, NLS_USES=gettext would work. |>

Re: Any way to add USES clause depending on two options without including bsd.port.options.mk?

On 06/23/2016 14:26, Yuri wrote: But what about the two options case? Is there any magic to do this without .include ? This isn't currently possible. But I think it makes sense to implement the double option case, because it is very easy to do this. Yuri

Re: Any way to add USES clause depending on two options without including bsd.port.options.mk?

El 24 jun. 2016 9:36 p. m., "Yuri" escribió: > > On 06/23/2016 14:54, Fernando Herrero Carrón wrote: >> >> Could you please elaborate on the reasons why you want to do that? I don't >> see how that particular combination of options would introduce a dependence >> that neither of

Re: Any way to add USES clause depending on two options without including bsd.port.options.mk?

On 06/23/2016 14:54, Fernando Herrero Carrón wrote: Could you please elaborate on the reasons why you want to do that? I don't see how that particular combination of options would introduce a dependence that neither of them alone would. In this particular case, as I figured, this isn't

Re: Any way to add USES clause depending on two options without including bsd.port.options.mk?

Yuri writes: > I have two port options: GUI NLS. > > I would like to have USES=gettext only when both GUI and NLS are "on". > > If it was only one option, say NLS, NLS_USES=gettext would work. > > But what about the two options case? Is there any magic to do this > without

Re: Any way to add USES clause depending on two options without including bsd.port.options.mk?

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:26:01 -0700 Yuri wrote > I have two port options: GUI NLS. > > I would like to have USES=gettext only when both GUI and NLS are "on". > > If it was only one option, say NLS, NLS_USES=gettext would work. > > But what about the two options case? Is there

Re: Any way to add USES clause depending on two options without including bsd.port.options.mk?

El 23 jun. 2016 11:26 p. m., "Yuri" escribió: > > I have two port options: GUI NLS. > > I would like to have USES=gettext only when both GUI and NLS are "on". > > If it was only one option, say NLS, NLS_USES=gettext would work. > > But what about the two options case? Is there any

Re: Any way to add USES clause depending on two options without including bsd.port.options.mk?

+--On 23 juin 2016 14:26:01 -0700 Yuri wrote: | I have two port options: GUI NLS. | | I would like to have USES=gettext only when both GUI and NLS are "on". | | If it was only one option, say NLS, NLS_USES=gettext would work. | | But what about the two options case? Is there

Any way to add USES clause depending on two options without including bsd.port.options.mk?

I have two port options: GUI NLS. I would like to have USES=gettext only when both GUI and NLS are "on". If it was only one option, say NLS, NLS_USES=gettext would work. But what about the two options case? Is there any magic to do this without .include ? Yuri

Re: bsd.port.pre.mk vs bsd.port.options.mk

Jason Helfman j...@freebsd.org wrote: It is preferred to evaluate ARCH with bsd.port.options.mk. It would be nice if this was better motivated than jgh said so. Anyway, a bit of grepping shows that there are many (hundreds?) of ports that should be changed accordingly then. Maybe you should

Re: bsd.port.pre.mk vs bsd.port.options.mk

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 06:34:05PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote: Jason Helfman j...@freebsd.org wrote: It is preferred to evaluate ARCH with bsd.port.options.mk. It would be nice if this was better motivated than jgh said so. Anyway, a bit of grepping shows that there are many

Re: bsd.port.pre.mk vs bsd.port.options.mk

bsd.port.pre.mk with bsd.port.options.mk, because it also makes ARCH available and is far less expensive. Now, a priori it is not clear to me that including options.mk is actually cheaper than pre.mk. And it seems odd to include options.mk but then not use any part of the options framework. The Porter's

bsd.port.pre.mk vs bsd.port.options.mk

I have port that does something like .include bsd.port.pre.mk .if ${ARCH} == ... ... .endif .include bsd.port.post.mk A while back somebody submitted a PR asking me to replace bsd.port.pre.mk with bsd.port.options.mk, because it also makes ARCH available and is far less

Re: proper use of bsd.port.options.mk

On 16 May 2011 05:18, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: On Sun, 15 May 2011, Doug Barton wrote: I'm confused (yeah, I know, nothing new about that). From ports/Mk/bsd.port.options.mk: # usage: # #       .include bsd.port.options.mk #       deal with user options #       .include

Re: proper use of bsd.port.options.mk

On 5/16/2011 3:23 AM, Chris Rees wrote: On 16 May 2011 05:18, Warren Blockwbl...@wonkity.com wrote: On Sun, 15 May 2011, Doug Barton wrote: I'm confused (yeah, I know, nothing new about that). From ports/Mk/bsd.port.options.mk: # usage: # # .include bsd.port.options.mk #deal with user

Re: proper use of bsd.port.options.mk

On 16 May 2011 18:23, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote: On 5/16/2011 3:23 AM, Chris Rees wrote: On 16 May 2011 05:18, Warren Blockwbl...@wonkity.com  wrote: On Sun, 15 May 2011, Doug Barton wrote: I'm confused (yeah, I know, nothing new about that). From ports/Mk/bsd.port.options.mk

Re: proper use of bsd.port.options.mk

On Mon, 16 May 2011, Chris Rees wrote: On 16 May 2011 05:18, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: On Sun, 15 May 2011, Doug Barton wrote: I'm confused (yeah, I know, nothing new about that). From ports/Mk/bsd.port.options.mk: # usage: # #       .include bsd.port.options.mk #       deal

Re: proper use of bsd.port.options.mk

On 16 May 2011 19:47, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: Could you give an example?  I looked, but nothing obvious jumped out. I think you (and ohauer) missed my followup with an example [1]. Chris [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-ports@freebsd.org/msg33780.html

Re: proper use of bsd.port.options.mk

]. Chris [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-ports@freebsd.org/msg33780.html Hm, at the moment I seen no benefit in your example, since it was written this way before bsd.port.options.mk  OPTIONS=    WITH_JAVA With Java on -.include bsd.port.options.mk +.include bsd.port.pre.mk

Re: proper use of bsd.port.options.mk

not trying to be a pita here, I have two goals; one is to update my ports to use bsd.port.options.mk, and the other is to get the documentation updated. I don't want to do either until we are all sure that we know the facts accurately. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin

proper use of bsd.port.options.mk

I'm confused (yeah, I know, nothing new about that). From ports/Mk/bsd.port.options.mk: # usage: # # .include bsd.port.options.mk # deal with user options # .include bsd.port.pre.mk # other work, including adjusting dependencies # .include bsd.port.post.mk

Re: proper use of bsd.port.options.mk

On Sun, 15 May 2011, Doug Barton wrote: I'm confused (yeah, I know, nothing new about that). From ports/Mk/bsd.port.options.mk: # usage: # # .include bsd.port.options.mk # deal with user options # .include bsd.port.pre.mk # other work, including adjusting dependencies

Re: [announce] bsd.port.options.mk available

Dmitry Marakasov píše v pá 22. 05. 2009 v 18:31 +0400: * Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote: we finally decided that enough users migrated to recent enough FreeBSD versions that we can finally suggest that maintainers can start using bsd.port.options.mk file in their ports

Re: [announce] bsd.port.options.mk available

Dmitry Marakasov píše v ne 24. 05. 2009 v 19:33 +0400: * Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote: Perhaps we can also start to deprecate WANT_*? Looks a bit radical to me. Or is there a good reason to do so? I meant slow transition from WANT_, like we do with

Re: bsd.port.options.mk

Philip M. Gollucci píše v čt 21. 05. 2009 v 22:34 -0400: +20090521: +AUTHOR: port...@freebsd.org + + * bsd.port.options.mk is now clear to be widely used. + Are there any existing examples of how one should use this or porters handbook sections ? There is an example in Porter's

[announce] bsd.port.options.mk available

Dear, we finally decided that enough users migrated to recent enough FreeBSD versions that we can finally suggest that maintainers can start using bsd.port.options.mk file in their ports. The examples in Porter's Handbook had been updated to illustrate a new usage. This will solve the problem

Re: [announce] bsd.port.options.mk available

* Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote: we finally decided that enough users migrated to recent enough FreeBSD versions that we can finally suggest that maintainers can start using bsd.port.options.mk file in their ports. The examples in Porter's Handbook had been updated to illustrate

bsd.port.options.mk

+20090521: +AUTHOR: port...@freebsd.org + + * bsd.port.options.mk is now clear to be widely used. + Are there any existing examples of how one should use this or porters handbook sections ? -- Philip M. Gollucci (phi

Re: bsd.port.options.mk

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Philip M. Gollucci pgollu...@p6m7g8.com wrote: +20090521: +AUTHOR: port...@freebsd.org + +  * bsd.port.options.mk is now clear to be widely used. + Are there any existing examples of how one should use this or porters handbook sections ? The comments

Re: bsd.port.options.mk

On Thu, 21 May 2009 22:30:35 -0500 Scot Hetzel swhet...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Philip M. Gollucci pgollu...@p6m7g8.com wrote: +20090521: +AUTHOR: port...@freebsd.org + +  * bsd.port.options.mk is now clear to be widely used. + Are there any existing

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 01:18:31PM +0100, Shaun Amott wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 02:00:14AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: So am I missing something or is it as trivial as using these four lines instead of one: USEOPTIONSMK= yes INOPTIONSMK=yes .include

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

* Andrew Pantyukhin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So am I missing something or is it as trivial as using these four lines instead of one: USEOPTIONSMK= yes INOPTIONSMK= yes .include bsd.port.mk .undef INOPTIONSMK This is even uglier than our existing work-around

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

Dmitry Marakasov escribió: Hi! CHANGES of 20060930 state that exeperimental bsd.port.options.mk has been added for OPTIONS to be able to influence dependencies. I need that feature for some of my ports, so I wanted to know what's the status for it? .include bsd.port.options.mk doesn't work

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

-independent? What's missing in existing FreeBSD versions that's needed to support options.mk? The make only looks into /usr/share/mk for includes, until told otherwise. bsd.port.options.mk is included before bsd.port.pre.mk, so it can't be found. Base system was modified to install stub of the same

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

and 7.0. Erm, isn't ports code (more or less) release-independent? What's missing in existing FreeBSD versions that's needed to support options.mk? The make only looks into /usr/share/mk for includes, until told otherwise. bsd.port.options.mk is included before bsd.port.pre.mk, so it can't

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

otherwise. bsd.port.options.mk is included before bsd.port.pre.mk, so it can't be found. Base system was modified to install stub of the same name into /usr/share/mk to workaround this problem. Understood. Then we really have to wait till 5.5 and 6.2 EOL to use options.mk... That's a bit strange

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

? The make only looks into /usr/share/mk for includes, until told otherwise. bsd.port.options.mk is included before bsd.port.pre.mk, so it can't be found. Base system was modified to install stub of the same name into /usr/share/mk to workaround this problem. Understood. Then we

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

... The first thing that comes into my mind is a port that does: do-install: @if [ ! -e /usr/share/mk/bsd.port.options.mk ]; then \ ${CP} ${PORTSDIR}/Mk/bsd.port.options.mk /usr/share/mk; \ fi This port should be automatically added to EXTRACT_DEPENDS from bsd.port.mk

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

On Sep 10, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Pav Lucistnik wrote: Create a port of that, the old FreeBSD versions depend on it to install in /usr/share/mk. I kind of don't like it, but it looks like it's only a solution if it has to be in /usr/share/mk. Doesn't solve anything. The files get installed

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

otherwise. bsd.port.options.mk is included before bsd.port.pre.mk, so it can't be found. Base system was modified to install stub of the same name into /usr/share/mk to workaround this problem. Understood. Then we really have to wait till 5.5 and 6.2 EOL to use options.mk... That's a bit

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

? The make only looks into /usr/share/mk for includes, until told otherwise. bsd.port.options.mk is included before bsd.port.pre.mk, so it can't be found. Base system was modified to install stub of the same name into /usr/share/mk to workaround this problem. Understood. Then we

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

) release-independent? What's missing in existing FreeBSD versions that's needed to support options.mk? The make only looks into /usr/share/mk for includes, until told otherwise. bsd.port.options.mk is included before bsd.port.pre.mk, so it can't be found. Base system was modified to install stub

bsd.port.options.mk status

Hi! CHANGES of 20060930 state that exeperimental bsd.port.options.mk has been added for OPTIONS to be able to influence dependencies. I need that feature for some of my ports, so I wanted to know what's the status for it? .include bsd.port.options.mk doesn't work, but using full path works

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

Dmitry Marakasov píše v ne 09. 09. 2007 v 23:46 +0400: CHANGES of 20060930 state that exeperimental bsd.port.options.mk has been added for OPTIONS to be able to influence dependencies. I need that feature for some of my ports, so I wanted to know what's the status for it? .include

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

* Pav Lucistnik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: CHANGES of 20060930 state that exeperimental bsd.port.options.mk has been added for OPTIONS to be able to influence dependencies. I need that feature for some of my ports, so I wanted to know what's the status for it? .include

Re: bsd.port.options.mk status

. bsd.port.options.mk is included before bsd.port.pre.mk, so it can't be found. Base system was modified to install stub of the same name into /usr/share/mk to workaround this problem. I would advise not to use it in your port yet. Maybe in two or three years. 8-[ ] Then what am I to do if I need, say