pkgsrc-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: include BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS in Makefile

kamel derouiche <> writes:

> i am disorientated when i examine some makefile, which uses and
> includes the following directive "BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS.pkg+=
> pkg>=version", compared with other package which does not use.
> for exemple: 
> sysutils/gnome-system-monitor (use BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS in Makfile) ,
> sysutils/gnome-device-manager ( not use BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS ).
> 1- On which basis we add BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS in Makefile ?

There is a default in the bl3 file.  If the appropriate value for the
package is differnet from the default (usually newer requirement), then
you put it in.  The bl3 file should have the normal value that's
appropriate for 90% of users.

Some of these values are incorrect; this can happen when a packages
says >=4 and then the bl3 file is updated to 5.

> 2- How we known that Makefile is correct (When we put the dependence
> which is appropriate)?

You read the excellent, correct documentation from the upsream package,
and exxpress their rules in bl3 inclusions.  If the upstream package has
lame documentation, you figure out what the documentation ought to say.

> 3- Much option without mentioned in configure.{in,ac} for package, is
> it obliged to transcribe all in Makefile?.

I'm not sure what you mean, but sometimes upstream packages check
esoteric libraries, and pkgsrc doesn't have bl3 entries in the package's
Makefile, so the configure tests should fail.  This is generally ok, but
perhaps could do with a comment.

If you find something in particular baffling, it would help to post the
package name and specify what seems incorrect - it's very hard to
dicsuss this in generalities.

Attachment: pgpBoHLxzwu3j.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index