x11/nvidia-driver incompatible with portmaster?
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
stephen at missouri.edu
Tue Jul 5 22:25:49 UTC 2011
On 07/05/2011 07:32 AM, b. f. wrote:
> Yes, as I wrote, I wasn't altogether happy with that, but it was
> expedient. If there is a symlink there, it will be overwritten, and
> then replaced by a link to either the xorg library or the
> nvidia-driver library, depending upon whether the nvidia-driver is
> present. Of course, that's not so different from any other port
> installation, which will overwrite existing files and links. But I
> guess you're using some alternative symlinks that you want to
> preserve? I could take the low road, and move the link out of the way
> temporarily, restoring it after renaming the xorg library, or I could
> take the high road and add further patches to override the current
> libtool install. Which road is it to be?
I would take the low road. The advantage is that if xorg-server gets
updated, then you don't need to rewrite the patch. Indeed, if I had
written the patch, I would have used this "rude" approach for every
affected port.
I also would have in pkg-list:
@exec cd the-dir; rm -f libglx.so; if [ -f libglx-nvidia.so ]; then ln
-s libglx-nvidia.so libglx.so; elif [ -f libglx-xorg.so ]; then ln -s
libglx-xorg.so libglx.so; fi
and exactly the same script for @unexec, and in post-install in each
Makefile, and for libGL.so and libglx.la, in every one of the affected
ports. This way there would be uniformity, and only one logic to
understand.
It would definitely be "ruder" than your approach, and more clutsy. But
I believe that sometimes clumsiness and redundancy wins if the logic is
more uniform and easier to follow.
This is, of course, all my opinion, and respects my personal style of
doing things, and is probably out of phase with most other FreeBSd
committers. And if your approach works, then I say it is more important
to do it than to argue about style.
Stephen
More information about the freebsd-x11
mailing list