Re: devel/cmake patch

[Brook Milligan <brook%nmsu.edu@localhost>]

> On Jul 7, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 01:03:10PM -0600, Brook Milligan wrote:
>> It seems that reducing the prerequisites would be a generally useful
>> goal for pkgsrc.  Why is it not appropriate to depend on a package that
>> will solve the problem rather than requiring a general prerequisite for
>> all of pkgsrc?
> 
> The problem is that many Linux systems have half-assed installations,
> i.e. parts or none of the headers, which makes it a lot more difficult
> to figure out what libraries are actually usable. You can always tell
> pkgsrc explicitly to assume that certain base libraries are not present.
> In this case, you are lying about the curses installation being
> incompatible, since it is not the problem. The problem is that you don't
> really have a curses installation on your specific system. With a decent
> installation even of the same distro, it would just work.

OK, so this is a fault of inconsistency.  In that case, I think you are suggesting that on specific systems such as this, the following should be added to mk.conf:

CURSES_DEFAULT=		ncurses

Are there Linux (or other) cases where this would _not_ be advised, i.e., where the native curses is inadequate but pkgsrc ncurses is not a useful replacement?  If that is the right path, it feels like this should be the advice given in the "libncurses not installed" section of [1], as that would also avoid a prerequisite for pkgsrc.

Cheers,
Brook

[1] http://wiki.netbsd.org/pkgsrc/how_to_use_pkgsrc_on_linux/