Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/net/scamper
To: Dieter Baron <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
Date: 11/02/2005 20:29:37
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Dieter Baron wrote:
> > > If we really want support for required options, I can add explicit
> > > support for this to the options framework (via the new variable
> > > PKG_OPTIONS_REQUIRED_OPTIONS, for example).
> > That would be a nice addition. However, there's still the PKG_FAIL vs.
> > PKG_SKIP difference to worry about.
> Why would you rather set PKG_SKIP than PKG_FAIL? Would you prefer
> PKG_SKIP over PKG_FAIL for empty required groups as well? If not,
> what is the distinctive difference?
The difference mainly shows up in bulk builds. Packages which are skipped
with PKG_SKIP_REASON do not directly show up as "broken", as make will exit
with a successful result value. That's why, for instance, USE_X11 with a
lack of X11 libraries is a failure (because it's fixable), but lack of a
usable JVM on a platform is a skip (because it's typically not fixable
without major work).
But the more I think about this, a failure is OK. The whole fail/skip thing
probably needs a rework anyway. :-/
-- Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>