Any plan to get bsd.gnome.mk works w/ OPTIONS?

[Joe Marcus Clarke]

On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 14:06, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:00:29 -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke 
> <marcus at marcuscom.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 12:48, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am a maintainer of x11-wm/fluxbox-devel and I just changed from
> >> pre-everything to OPTIONS. So, I noticed that it needs the OPTIONS to be
> >> add in the bsd.gnome.mk. Do anyone have any plan? I tried to do it by
> >> myself (for now) like this for example:
> >>
> >> ===================================
> >> WANT_GNOME=	yes
> >>
> >> OPTIONS=	GNOME "Enable GNOME support" on
> >>
> >> .include <bsd.port.pre.mk>
> >>
> >> .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mlibgnome}!=""
> >> CONFIGURE_ARGS+=	--enable-gnome
> >> .else
> >> CONFIGURE_ARGS+=	--disable-gnome
> >> .endif
> >>
> >> .include <bsd.port.post.mk>
> >> ===================================
> >>
> >> It will not listen to the OPTIONS if the user turn it off, but will 
> >> listen
> >> to the 'make -DWITHOUT_GNOME'.
> >
> > That's because OPTIONS are processed after bsd.gnome.mk is included in
> > bsd.port.post.mk.
> 
> I did tried put OPTIONS inside and it still doesn't work.

No, what I mean is that bsd.gnome.mk is included in bsd.port.mk BEFORE
the OPTIONS are looked at.  Therefore, it won't matter what you do in
your port's Makefile, OPTIONS will not affect HAVE_GNOME.

> 
> >> I am wondering what are the plan for this like remove GNOME from OPTIONS
> >> and it will be done by automatic by bsd.gnome.mk or should I keep GNOME 
> >> in
> >> OPTIONS? Just want to ask so I can have it ready early. :-)
> >
> > There is no plan to add OPTIONS directly into bsd.gnome.mk.
> 
> Well I think we will need it later, because it will not can tell what's 
> default of off and on. I think, it needs to have something like if 
> libgnome exists then it is on in the OPTIONS.

That would require some work to bsd.port.mk and bsd.gnome.mk.  You're
welcome to take a crack at it.

> 
> > However, OPTIONS may get an overhaul at some point so that the above will
> > work. For now, I would leave things to bsd.gnome.mk, or add another check
> > in your Makefile:
> >
> > .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mlibgnome}!="" && !defined(WITHOUT_GNOME)
> 
> It still doesn't make any sense to me. Let's say if I want it to be off by 
> default for example as opposite, since I have libgnome and I can test it 
> that way. It should be same idea as user that who doesn't has any libgnome 
> install and want to enable WITH_GNOME.
> 
> ===================================
> WANT_GNOME=	yes
> 
> OPTIONS=	GNOME "Enable GNOME support" off
> 
> .include <bsd.port.pre.mk>
> 
> .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mlibgnome}!="" && defined(WITH_GNOME)
> CONFIGURE_ARGS+=	--enable-gnome
> .else
> CONFIGURE_ARGS+=	--disable-gnome
> .endif
> 
> .include <bsd.port.post.mk>
> ===================================
> 
> It works fine with OPTIONS, but what if I have the WITH_BATCH define when 
> I have libgnome exists? It will not work very well with the WITH_BATCH 
> define. Only a solution to me so far is to not use HAVE_GNOME.

Yes, that will not work in this example.  Though you could do something
like:

.if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mlibgnome}!="" || defined(WITH_GNOME)

That's one of the problems with OPTIONS now.  The negative and positive
scenarios are not well-defined.  What I've decided to do myself is not
use OPTIONS for things that are auto-detected.

Joe

> 
> Cheers,
> Mezz
> 
> > Joe
> >
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Mezz
-- 
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-gnome/attachments/20040430/c3c46350/attachment.bin