ports/146419: [patch] devel/directfb: FREETYPE2 enabled unconditionally

[Anonymous]

The following reply was made to PR ports/146419; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Anonymous <swell.k at gmail.com>
To: bf1783 at gmail.com
Cc: bug-followup at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/146419: [patch] devel/directfb: FREETYPE2 enabled  unconditionally
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 10:13:40 +0400

 "b. f." <bf1783 at googlemail.com> writes:
 > On 5/10/10, Anonymous <swell.k at gmail.com> wrote:
 >> And ports/144765 does exactly that, i.e. adds OPTIONS, except it doesn't
 >> remove above statement.
 >
 > Good.  But it should also remove these lines, or users will not be
 > able to disable auto-detection and -configuration of freetype support
 > when freetype is installed, as you wanted.
 
 With my patch they can. OPTIONS either define WITH_BLAH=yes or
 WITHOUT_BLAH=yes depending on whether knob was selected or not.
 So when both are defined WITHOUT_BLAH takes precedence.
 
 It works with and without ports/144765.
 
 >>
 >> And the purpose of things like HAVE_GNOME is exactly to intervene with
 >> user's decision and enable things based on what's already installed.
 >>
 >
 > I guess here you're talking my separate response to PR ports/146385.
 > I'm not sure what you mean by this.
 
 No, I'm talking about cases like in graphics/gimp-app
 
   .if defined(WITH_GVFS) || ${HAVE_GNOME:Mgvfs}!=""
   LIB_DEPENDS+=   gnome-keyring.0:${PORTSDIR}/security/gnome-keyring
   USE_GNOME+=     gvfs
   .  if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mlibgnomeui}!=""
   USE_GNOME+=     libgnomeui
   .  endif
   .endif
 
 Note, the port does not provide a way to disable GVFS when it's installed
 
 > My point there was that rather than subverting the use of *_GNOME in
 > one port Makefile, the question of of libgsf's dependence on gconf2
 > should be addressed centrally in bsd.gnome.mk and the libgsf port
 > Makefile, so that dependencies are properly recorded for _all_ ports
 > that use libgsf, and ports are not attempting to use some Gnome ports
 > outside of the *_GNOME framework, and some inside, which could lead to
 > confusion.  I support your attempt to reduce the number of
 > dependencies for users that want to use part but not all of Gnome, but
 > not the way you went about it.
 >
 > b.