On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Matthias Scheler wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:45:52PM +0100, David Brownlee wrote:
> > 	Would it make sense to have a suse_linux/buildlink.mk file?
>
> For what purpose? Buildlink is for includes and libraries and we don't
> compile any Linux programs.
>
	If we had a <something>.mk file for each suse{,64}_* package
	which handled the DEPENDS entries in the same way as
	buildlink.mk then we could cleanly handle running pkgsrc on
	linux without having to add constructs like the following to
	every package that wants suse*

	.if ${OPSYS} != "Linux"
	DEPENDS+=       suse_compat-[0-9]*:../../emulators/suse_compat
	DEPENDS+=       suse_x11-[0-9]*:../../emulators/suse_x11
	.endif

> > 	Or at least a <something>.mk?
>
> What do you think what "suse_linux/Makefile.application" is?

	I thought it might be more consistant to name them <something>.mk
-- 
		David/absolute		-- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --