On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 12:16:38PM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:14:30AM -0800, Johnny C. Lam wrote:
> > > These packages should just add the ncurses/buildlink2.mk, that's all that's
> > > needed. After it is fixed, of course :)
> > 
> > I disagree.  I don't want to go around adding ncurses/buildlink2.mk to
> > Makefiles of packages that just need curses, because those packages simply
> > don't need ncurses, and it's misleading.
> 
> You seem to be attaching to much to a name.
> So let's just assume we move ncurses/buildlink2.mk to mk/curses.mk and
> include that as I proposed -- what's the problem then?

It's because the name is important.  The other buildlink2.mk files were
designed so that when you include it, you get what you're asking for.  I
simply don't want to add complexity to the ncurses/buildlink2.mk file
that don't have to do with ncurses at all because it makes for unexpected
behaviour at times.  We've seen this already with the gettext-lib
buildlink2.mk file.  I prefer the solution I suggested and was implemented
in pkg/20453 if only so that packages that include ncurses/buildlink2.mk
_know_ that they're getting a ncurses implementation.

	Cheers,

	-- Johnny Lam <jlam@jgrind.org>