On Wednesday 16 January 2008 03:47:37 Marc Balmer wrote: > Landry Breuil wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 03:10:26PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote: > >> Landry Breuil wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 03:32:52PM -0800, Jeremy Evans wrote: > >>>> On 11/14 08:56, Landry Breuil wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:38:38PM -0800, Jeremy Evans wrote: > >>>>>> This diff adds a no_x11 flavor to textproc/xpdf. This is necessary if > >>>>>> you want to use the pdftotext program without X being installed. This > >>>>>> patch is the same is one sent last week, update to -current for the > >>>>>> recent security patch to xpdf. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tested on i386. Please test and commit. > >>>>> We (bernd and i) had a look at your previous patch, and it seems to make > >>>>> more sense to have a multi-packages with xpdf-main and xpdf-utils, the > >>>>> latter > >>>>> containing what corresponds to your no_x11 flavor. > >>>>> An updated diff should appear soon, there is only a little issue about > >>>>> upgrading from xpdf to xpdf-main+xpdf-utils which leads to conflicts. > >>>> I agree, multi-packages make more sense. I'm not sure if you had time > >>>> to work on a diff, so I prepared one. It is attached. Hopefully we can > >>>> work out the upgrade conflicts. > >>> Ah, yes, bernd@ sent me a diff a while ago about this one, with a > >>> @pkgpath marker to solve the update/conflicts. It also moves pdftops to > >>> -main package, i'm not sure if it's needed.. and -main doesn't > >>> run_depends on -utils. > >>> > >>> xpdf users, what do you think about it ? Is it worth making this > >>> MULTI_PACKAGES ? Attached diff needs comments and feedback. > >> I'd prefer a single package. i.e. users must have X11 installed. > > > > That was the main idea, needing X only for xpdf binary, and being also able > > to install xpdf-utils on systems without X sets.. i can think of a > > webapp that converts pdfs to ps/txt installed on a webserver without X sets. > > And yes, users still complains and don't understand why they haveto install > > X sets on their headless servers, even if it's explained in the faq. > > > > But as bernd said, i dunno if it's worth the effort adding complicated cruft > > to this port. > > we stated many times that for some ports you just need X installed. So > it is no problem.
Yes, some ports. Some ports there is no option at all. In this case there is an option. So either the port uses multi packages or it uses a no_x11 FLAVOR. The no_x11 FLAVOR is the better choice. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
