On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:52:44AM +0300, Valery Masiutsin wrote: >> Hi! >> >> It doesn't package correctly if /usr/local/lib/tclx8.4/libtclx84.so.1.0 >> is not in system. Missing WANTLIB in Makefile and redundant RUN_DEPENDS >> variables + it could be done without automake/autoconf. >> >> Maybe you could take a look on tclx port I submitted to ports@ >> some time ago: >> http://secure.lv/~nikns/stuff/ports/tclx-8.4.tar >> >> I am interested in having tclx in tree too. >> >Hello Nikns ! > >Thanks for the points with WANTLIB and RUN_DEPENDS, but i cant agree >with your point about automake/autoconf. >I think that direct patching of generated configure scripts is an >extremely questionable thing, especially when you have access to >original *.ac/*.m4 files, and can patch source of the problem and >generate proper configure script. AFAIK openbsd ports intended for >package building and not for installing of software (well in most >cases), so i see no problem in usage of autoconf/automake stuff for >package building.
Could anyone of ports commiters take a look on these tclx ports, please? >libtclx84.so.X.X is not in the ldconfig cache, it is loaded when you >loading tclx package with 'package require Tclx' in your script, but >it is a shared library nonetheless. Should we or not track it with >SHARED_LIBS ? I am not sure, probably should. But i think somebody of >more experienced folks can correct/enlighten me. >I think we should merge efforts with tclx port,to get it into the tree :) >Regards Valery >
