On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:03:16PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2016/10/17 16:41, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 03:20:37PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > On 2016/10/17 13:49, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> > > > Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm going to do a bulk build with this to see if it shakes anything
> > > > > out.
> > > > > Any comments on whether it's worth committing?
> > > >
> > > > I like the idea, but it currently doesn't behave as one would expect.
> > > > See for example x11/xpad, which has
> > > >
> > > > MODULES= textproc/intltool
> > > >
> > > > The patch shouldn't change anything since intltool brings in
> > > > gettext-tools, but:
> > >
> > > Thanks - Antoine pointed out that this will apply to GNOME as well.
> > >
> > > We could check for multiple alternative ports in BUILD_DEPENDS, but
> > > this wouldn't fit nicely with Marc's suggestion to make the framework
> > > more general, so how about adding gettext-tools to intltool.port.mk?
> >
> > If there is no other way...
>
> The two options are
>
> +.if !defined(BUILD_DEPENDS) || !${BUILD_DEPENDS:Mdevel/gettext-tools} && \
> + !${BUILD_DEPENDS:Mtextproc/intltool}
This has my vote.
Less magic imho.
> or adding to BUILD_DEPENDS in intltool.port.mk.
>
> Who has which preferences? :)
>
--
Antoine
