Subject: Re: optional X11 dependency in packages?
To: Frederick Bruckman <>
From: Jim Wise <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 01/09/2002 19:38:42
Hash: SHA1

Yah, I agree in general.  It just seems a shame here, as there is _no_
PLIST change, and the only functional change is a lack of xpm support,
which is rarely used in my impression.

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Frederick Bruckman wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Jim Wise wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Lubomir Sedlacik wrote:
>> >question: is it possible to decide in package whether machine has X11
>> >and take some action then?  something like:
>> >
>> >.ifdef (HAVE_X11)
>> >.include "../../mk/"
>> >.else
>> >CONFIGURE_ARGS=+	--without-x
>> >.endif
>> >
>> >if not (i don't see anything in mk/, shouldn't be a
>> >mechanism like this implemented in pkgsrc?  there are many packages
>> >which depend on X11 only because of legacy of other packages on which it
>> >is dependent too or can be used without X11 support with altered
>> >functionality.
>> >
>> >i would like to know your oppinions, ideas, etc. thanks,
>I suggested that some time ago (re: xhfs), but the consensus was to
>make separate packages. That's why these "no-x" packages exist. By the
>time you conditionalize the PLIST handling, it would probably have
>been easier to make a separate package anyway. Plus you leave "no-x"
>users out in the cold as far as binary packages are concerned.
>> I have correct patches for gd and webalizer to have the type of optional
>> X11 dependency you describe (for the same reason).  I've been debating
>> whether it is better to have gd have an optional X11 dependency like
>> this (the only change in functionality is xpm output), or to have a
>> separate gd-nox11 package, ala ghostscript.
>> What do people think?
>Separate. Besides the old reasons, the whole bunch of "HAVE_X11=no"
>packages would probably never get the benefit of bulk-build testing,
>whereas separate packages certainly would.

- -- 
				Jim Wise
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see