Selecting at least one option out of multiple groups
Hello, I am porting a piece of software (purple-plugin-pack) to FreeBSD. It contains numerous plugins for Pidgin all under one pack (over 50). They all compile, but I want to make it configurable which plugins are installed, but it makes no sense unless at least one plugin is set. So far I have the following: 8<== snip ==>8 OPTIONS_MULTI=plugins OPTIONS_MULTI_PLUGINS=ALBUM AUTOPROFILE AUTOREPLY AWAYNOTIFY BASH BIT \ ... 8<== snip ==>8 Which is fine and works as expected (at least one option must be selected). However, here is my dilemma. Some of the plugins provide additional protocols. I'd like to group them under their own section, since there's at least 5 or so, and it's logical for those who just want additional protocols without the other fluff. However, out of the entire pack, only one plugin needs to be enabled at all (including *or* excluding a protocol plugin). So, I am wondering what the "correct" way would be to go about ensuring at least one option out of two groups is selected. I hope I've managed to make sense here. -- Cheers, Elizabeth Myers ___ 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"
Re: testing the value of ${CXX} in ports Makefile
On 01/29/15 21:43, Don Lewis wrote:
> I need to test the value of ${CXX} in the Makefile for a port and am
> getting unexpected results. Here is a simplified version of the
> Makefile:
>
> PORTNAME= junk
> PORTVERSION= 0.0.0
> CATEGORIES= devel
> DISTFILES=
>
> MAINTAINER= truck...@freebsd.org
> COMMENT= junk
>
> USE_GCC= 4.9+
>
> .include
>
> post-patch:
> echo CXX=${CXX}
> .if ${CXX} == g++49
> echo detected g++49
> .else
> echo did not detect g++49
> .endif
>
> .include
>
>
> If I run "make patch", this is what I get:
>
> # make patch
> ===> junk-0.0.0 depends on file: /usr/local/sbin/pkg - found
> ===> Fetching all distfiles required by junk-0.0.0 for building
> ===> Extracting for junk-0.0.0
> ===> Patching for junk-0.0.0
> echo CXX=g++49
> CXX=g++49
> echo did not detect g++49
> did not detect g++49
>
>
> If I run "make -dA patch" and look at the debug output, I observe
> bsd.gcc.mk getting processed after the .if is evaluated. When the .if
> is processed, the value of ${CXX} is still c++. It sort of looks like
> bsd.gcc.mk isn't getting included until bsd.port.post.mk and we are
> relying on lazy expansion to get the correct value of ${CXX} for the
> actions.
>
> It sort of looks like I'll have to do something like:
>
> post-patch:
> [ ${CXX} = g++49 ] && echo detected g++49
>
> but that just seems goofy.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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"
Why do you need to detect it? Shouldn't USE_GCC ensure it's there? In
any case, browsing through the ports tree, you could try .if
!empty(CXX:M*g++49*)
--
Cheers,
Elizabeth Myers
___
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"
Re: Selecting at least one option out of multiple groups
On 02/01/15 00:55, Scot Hetzel wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Elizabeth Myers > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am porting a piece of software (purple-plugin-pack) to FreeBSD. It >> contains numerous plugins for Pidgin all under one pack (over 50). They > > Is this going to be one port that installs over 50 plugins (based on > what is selected), or is it going to be over 50+1 ports? I was thinking one port, since they come as a pack, and the idea of adding over 50 ports to the tree is... well, that's 50 ports I'd have to submit. That's quite an undertaking. > +1 port (pidgin-purple-plugin-pack) [meta-port (see x11/kde4 for an example)] > - allows you to select which purple plugins to install (depends on > selected pidgin-purple-plugin-* ports) If there's a meta port, I guess it wouldn't matter if no plugins were selected by it? I still think it'd be ideal to categorise them in the meta port, at least by protocol/general use. > over 50 ports > - individual port for each plugin (i.e. > graphics/pidgin-purple-plugin-album > net-im/pidgin-purple-plugin-autoprofile > net-im/pidgin-purple-plugin-autoreply > net-im/pidgin-purple-plugin-awaynotify > shells/pidgin-purple-plugin-bash > ...) > - allows individual plugins to be installed/de-installed without > having to re-install the purple-plugin-pack This is definitely appealing, I will admit. > If you go the over 50+1 ports route, each port could have it's own > option settings. So far none of the plugins in the pack have their own option settings, as far as I can tell. This does leave open the possibility, though. -- Cheers, Elizabeth Myers ___ 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"
[NEW PORT] x11-fonts/symbola - a Unicode 7.0 font
Hello, I'm posting this in case the bugzilla issue got lost in the noise. I know four days is a bit hasty, though *puts on flameproof garments*. See issue: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197090 This font also contains numerous emoji, which is what I use for emoji support here. Not in colour, of course, but it's still better than nothing. If anyone has any comments/rotten tomatoes to pelt at me, go right on ahead. -- Cheers, Elizabeth ___ 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"
