Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:39:48PM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:10:39PM +0100, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
>>
>>> .if !empty(PKG_OPTIONS:Mtk)
>>>-DEPENDS+=		tk>=8.4:../../x11/tk
>>>+.  include "../../x11/tk/buildlink3.mk"
>>> PLIST_SUBST+=		TK=""
>>
>>Don't change this part -- tk is not used for linking, so a plain DEPENDS
>>is quite sufficient. (The package only needs the wish executable from
>>tk.)
> 
> 
> Oh, is this a different "kind" of dependency then?  

Yes, I believe it is a different kind.  It only wants "wish" from at 
least a certain version of x11/tk, as opposed to wanting to link against 
libtk.so.  If a packages wanted to do the latter, then including 
tk/buildlink3.mk is appropriate.

I'm debating whether to add "wish" (and similarly for "tclsh") to the 
tools framework, so that a package that wanted "wish" at run-time would 
set instead:

	USE_TOOLS+=	wish:run

The tools framework would then take care of providing a common place for 
setting the dependency on the tk package, though it may be overridden on 
a per-package basis.  This matches what I've currently done with "perl", 
i.e., packages that want just want the "perl" interpreter at run-time 
are setting:

	USE_TOOLS+=	perl:run

Note that the perl dependency in the tools framework is looser than the 
one in perl5/buildlink3.mk because if a package just wants the perl 
interpreter, then some older version of perl can still be used.

	Cheers,

	-- Johnny Lam <jlam@pkgsrc.org>