ports/36112: [PATCH] New feature for whole ports tree: GS_PORT variable

[Jens Rehsack]

On 28.07.2003 14:17, Kris Kennaway wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 02:09:16PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
> 
>> So what's your preferred next step: committing patch from ports/36112
>> and close all PR's I submitted and re-check after commit all ports
>> which are not affected, or shall I re-submit with the style of
>> ports/36112?
> 
> I'd like to commit a version of the patch in 36112, with my suggested
> modifications, and updated to handle changes to the affected ports in
> the time since the PR was submitted (e.g. new ports, fixing conflicts
> in the patch, etc).  I'd prefer it if someone else could submit the
> revised patch, but I'll get to it eventually if no-one else does.

Agreed :-)

>> And to give a statement about WITHOUT_X11 and print/ghostscript-*-nox11:
>> I think it makes much sense to check, because the right dependency is
>> kept, but I don't want to blow the check to much and avoid changing
>> the configure-scripts more than absolutely necessary. The scripts must
>> have knowledge about the handling of bsd.port.mk and the style how
>> print/ghostscript-*-nox11 are working. I don't like those kind of code,
>> so I tried to have a small step and discuss about further changes
>> with experts (eg. like you and Tilman).
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here.

I mean that I see the requirement of checking for -nox11, but I
don't want to introduce it overall, because I see that the
configure scripts of mail/courier and graphics/ImageMagic check
for it separately. So I wanted to hear what the port experts say
to that problem.

Maybe you should take a look into both ports and into
print/cups-pstoraster, too. Maybe checking my patches to both
give some more clearance, what I mean.

>> I've seen some problems with ghostscript-fonts (because I don't
>> understand why it wont work with ghostscript-afpl) and
>> print/cups-pstoraster (were I've got it depend on
>> print/ghostscript-afpl but wasn't able to check whether it's
>> working right or not).
>> 
>> I like the way like lang/php4 handles the right port-dependency,
>> but I strongly agree to Joe Markus Clarke who wrote to ports/52674
>> that such an include should be dependent port related and not
>> be for portmgr in Mk/. I would like to see a bsd.ghostscript.mk,
>> but not in Mk/ but in sth. like print/ghostscript.
> 
> What would such a bsd.ghostscript.mk contain?

Not much, just a check for the right ghostscript-port (gnu/afpl,
(-nox11){0,1}). And maybe some common things from
ghostscript-*/Makefile (must be checked before).

> Kris

Best,
Jens