Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils/xfce4-utils Makefile

On 20 Dec 2011 00:11, "Doug Barton" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 12/19/2011 02:03, Chris Rees wrote:
> >
> > On 19 Dec 2011 09:59, "Doug Barton" <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks, that's 1/3 of the job done. :) =A0The problem is that the curr=
ent
> >> OPTION creates the false idea that the only way you can lock your scre=
en
> >> is to use xlockmore.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you missed my followup where I mentioned that the next step
> >> would be to add an OPTION for xscreensaver as well, and the logic to
> >> avoid having them both defined.
> >
> > I'll look at that later.
>
> Thanks. In answer to your question avoiding having both enabled would be
> nice since it avoids duplicate, unnecessary redundancy.
>
> >> Better yet would be to detect if one or the other is already installed=
,
> >> and default the OPTIONS accordingly.
> >
> > Autodetection in ports? No thanks!
>
> I didn't suggest autodetecting for the dependencies, I suggested it for
> the OPTIONS. That's been done for a long time, and ideally should be how
> it's always done.

Ok... a pointer on how that's done would be good.

The only way I can think of would be:

..if exists(${LOCALBASE}/bin/xlock)
OPTIONS+=3D XLOCK "Use xlock for 'lock screen'" on
..else
OPTIONS+=3D XLOCK "Use xlock for 'lock screen'" off
..endif

which would be great if LOCALBASE were actually defined before
bsd.port.options.mk.

I can't see a way to do this.  Do you have an example port?

Chris
_______________________________________________
[e-mail] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[e-mail]"