On 20 Dec 2011 06:53, Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 20 Dec 2011 00:11, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 12/19/2011 02:03, Chris Rees wrote:
On 19 Dec 2011 09:59, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org
mailto:do...@freebsd.org wrote:
Thanks, that's 1/3 of the job done. :) The problem is that the
current
OPTION creates the false idea that the only way you can lock your
screen
is to use xlockmore.
Perhaps you missed my followup where I mentioned that the next step
would be to add an OPTION for xscreensaver as well, and the logic to
avoid having them both defined.
I'll look at that later.
Thanks. In answer to your question avoiding having both enabled would be
nice since it avoids duplicate, unnecessary redundancy.
Better yet would be to detect if one or the other is already
installed,
and default the OPTIONS accordingly.
Autodetection in ports? No thanks!
I didn't suggest autodetecting for the dependencies, I suggested it for
the OPTIONS. That's been done for a long time, and ideally should be how
it's always done.
Ok... a pointer on how that's done would be good.
The only way I can think of would be:
.if exists(${LOCALBASE}/bin/xlock)
OPTIONS+= XLOCK Use xlock for 'lock screen' on
.else
OPTIONS+= XLOCK Use xlock for 'lock screen' off
.endif
which would be great if LOCALBASE were actually defined before
bsd.port.options.mk.
I can't see a way to do this. Do you have an example port?
Ok, so anyone have a better way to autodetect default options than this?
http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/xfce4-utils-xlock-dependency.diff
I don't like this, but if enough people are desperate and fellow xfce guys
don't object I suppose it works.
Chris
___
freebsd-xfce@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xfce
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-xfce-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
