--JWEK1jqKZ6MHAcjA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

hi,

On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 02:47:53PM -0800, Johnny C. Lam wrote:
> if something wants just aalib, will aalib-x11 also suffice?  If so,
> then we can combine their buildlink.mk files and rewrite dependencies
> by changing:
>=20
> 	DEPENDS+=3D	aalib-[0-9]*:../../graphics/aalib
>=20
> into:
>=20
> 	DEPENDS+=3D	aalib{,-x11}-[0-9]*:../../graphics/aalib-x11

i am sorry, but i don't understand how you mean "suffice" in this case,
because if you'll make package to build aalib-x11 if there is no aalib
package installed and you have no X11, you will fail to build it (that's
why there is aalib package - for environment without X11).

> > Hmm, and that will result in a problem with binary packages.
> > aalib and aalib-x11 install the same files, thats why the are
> > conflicting.
>=20
> The proposed dependency is how we currently deal with packages that
> use either ghostscript or ghostscript-nox11.  The way it works is that
> it'll use the first aalib package it finds, ...

well, this is not an ideal solution either because with plain aalib
package you will lose advantages which comes with aalib-x11 if you use
X environment.

[snip]

> > I can see why gphoto2 use aalib, there is no need for X11 support
> > since gphoto2 has no x11 interface, if you want one you have to use
> > gtkam.
> >=20
> > But gtkam use the gphoto2 buildlink file and therefor only gets the
> > aalib dependecy, and I don't know if thats enough for gtkam.  I
> > changed my local gphoto2 Makefile to use aalib-x11 instead of aalib
> > to get it working for now on.

well, maybe you can check what functionality you would gain with
aalib-x11 instead of plain aalib in gtkam. there is a chance that there
is no difference. X11 support for aalib is used for viewing output in
X11 window and for somewhat better control with keyboard in this window.
this is useful for packages like mplayer which has much better output
with aalib-x11 than plain aalib.

> > > Please file a PR on this problem, as I think there is definitely
> > > something wrong with the aalib buildlink.mk files.

i made buildlink.mk files for aalib* packages, could you get me a hint
what could be wrong with them? i would look at it asap (tomorrow,
probably) and try to fix it. i already made Makefile.common for both
packages to simplify updating and to have better control over these
packages. i'll submit them later later with other fixes due to low
priority of these changes.

any hints or ideas how to solve this issue are welcome and will be
highly appreciated. i can miss something so please correct me if i
said something wrong.

regards,

--=20
-- Lubomir Sedlacik <salo@Xtrmntr.org>   ASCII Ribbon campaign against  /"\=
 --
--                  <salo@silcnet.org>   e-mail in gratuitous HTML and  \ /=
 --
--                                       Microsoft proprietary formats   X =
 --
-- PGPkey: http://Xtrmntr.org/salo.pgp                                  / \=
 --
-- Key Fingerprint: DBEC 8BEC 9A90 ECEC 0FEF  716E 59CE B70B 7E3B 70E2     =
 --

--JWEK1jqKZ6MHAcjA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8hY95Wc63C347cOIRAo+cAKDpkpk1RXd1inTw0i2c4fm+pftS3gCgiNu7
CE2d9uUOmme3ugwtMa1fqXg=
=pund
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--JWEK1jqKZ6MHAcjA--