On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Mathieu Arnold <m...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> +--On 3 avril 2015 20:06:09 -0700 Kevin Oberman <rkober...@gmail.com> > wrote: > | On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Mathieu Arnold <m...@freebsd.org> wrote: > | > |> > |> > |> +--On 3 avril 2015 05:46:45 +0000 Ben Woods <woods...@gmail.com> wrote: > |> | I am working on modifying a port, and was wondering how do I specify > |> | that selecting port option1 requires that option2 is also selected? > |> | > |> | Note that in my example it is perfectly acceptable to have option2 > |> | selected without option1. > |> > |> This functionnality is coming, it's being discussed in > |> <https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191144> but for now, > |> you'll have to do some testing in your Makefile and either add an IGNORE > |> or force the other option. > |> > |> -- > |> Mathieu Arnold > |> > | > | What I have done in the past is to put "(Forces option OPTION)" in the > | description line and then either set opt2 in the IF block for opt1 or > | simply set the opt2 flag, if that is all opt2 requires, in that block. > > But that means you'll need to include bsd.port.options.mk, which will have > to parse bsd.port.mk a second time, which is slow. And also, that you're > not using options helpers. > > -- > Mathieu Arnold > This is what happens when you have not ported anything that required anything beyond the basics since the "new" OPTIONS system came into place. Clearly, you are right in the case of forcing opt2, but, if all opt2 does is set an option for configure or something similarly trivial, that does not look to me like it would incur these problems. (I have no idea if it does.) -- Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
