cvs commit: ports/x11/linux-XFree86-libs Makefile
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Fri Dec 24 17:08:56 PST 2004
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:35:54 -0500 (EST)
Trevor Johnson <trevor at jpj.net> wrote:
> > > Modified files:
> > > x11/linux-XFree86-libs Makefile
> > > Log:
> > > This works with linux_base-rh-9 and linux_base-suse-9.1 as well as
> > > linux_base-8.
> > I'm not sure removing the dependency on any linux_base is the right
> > thing to do. Additionally I think we shouldn't support more than one
> > linux_base. It's fine if it works with more than one linux_base, but we
> > can't guarantee it.
> I made sure that it works with those three. I designed them from the
> get-go to work with it. If they actually do not, kindly report the
I failed to explain it the right way... we can't guarantee that every
linux port is able to run with every linux_base.
> Traditionally we've had multiple linux_base ports. I have no problem with
> that tradition--it's not in our power to unify all the Linux
> distributions, nor for that matter all the X11 distributions!
That's not the point. We just don't have the resources to support all
linux ports with every linux_base.
> > My suggestion is: let it depend upon the default linux_base by default
> > (my patchset takes care of this). After 4.11 is out the door, let's
> > update the default linux_base to a recent one, remove all
> > obsolete/outdated/forbidden linux_base ports, get everything into good
> > shape and think about how to allow non-default linux_base ports to work
> > with everything (e.g. a patch for bsd.port.mk which modifies the
> > USE_LINUX code to use an already installed linux_base (with a warning
> > that we don't guarantee anything) or to install a predefined one, like
> > we did with the X_WINDOW_SYSTEM part of bsd.port.mk).
> The patch you sent me would have added a dependency on this port to the
> Linux ports which need X11 (presently, I ask users to install this port
> manually). I don't see how my commit conflicts with the patch you sent
> me. Does this commit create an actual problem?
It doesn't create a conflict, but as Kris already noted: it breaks the
build on the ports build cluster. You've removed the dependency to a
linux_base, therefore rpm can't find a file it needs. As you can see
above, I don't object on what you intended to do, but how you did it
(the port has to depend upon a linux_base port, and I already outlined
above how this can be achieved).
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
More information about the cvs-ports