On Tuesday 30 December 2003 02:50 pm, Daniel Eggert wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 30, 2003 8:06 PM, Adam C. Migus typed:
> > On Tuesday 30 December 2003 01:12 pm, Daniel Eggert wrote:
> > > > On Monday 29 December 2003 06:10 pm, grant beattie wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 06:08:21PM -0500, Adam C. Migus
> > > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > So then why do the variables _need_ to be per-package?  I
> > > > actually like being able to say USE_{SOMETHING} and know it
> > > > means "if a package has support for {SOMETHING} I want to
> > > > compile it in..."
> > >
> > > One good example: I have mail/postfix, security/sasl and
> > > databases/openldap. I need to compile postfix with sasl and
> > > openldap support and I need sasl with openldap support. This
> > > doesn't work if openldap is compiled with sasl support as it will
> > > create a circular dependency and everything wil break once I try
> > > to 'make update'.
> >
> > The fact that using USE_SASL creates a circular dependency when
> > doing make update in this situation is a problem with the logic in
> > update. Solving it by not defining USE_SASL is like trying to avoid
> > breaking your leg by not walking.
>
> Well, both yes and no: Circular dependencies break "make update"
> because they "have to". Circular dependencies are bad per-se -- with
> and without "make update".
>

All I'm saying is the circular dependency should be fixed in make and 
pkg_ utilities not by trying to avoid it with feature restriction.

> > > > How difficult would it be to offer the decision making logic
> > > > behind some kind of construct to allow simple inclusion or
> > > > exclusion lists in mk.conf?
> > >
> > > Well, a simple thing would be to use _USE_ variables (such as
> > > POSTFIX_USE_SASL) instead of general USE_ (e.g. USE_SASL), but
> > > this would of course create a vast amount of _USE_ variables.
> > >
> > > /Daniel
> >
> > This is precisely my point.  I'm trying to avoid a 100 line mk.conf
> > file consisting predominantly of {SOMETHING}_USE_{SOMETHINGELSE} in
> > favor of something like USE_{SOMETHING}_FOR={LIST OF THINGS}.  The
> > idea being it's more consice, less confusing to look at, more
> > scalable, etc.
> >
> > Even if no one wants this type of directive there should be nothing
> > wrong with declaring USE_{SOMETHING} for universal usage of it
> > therefor I think you've found a run-time bug in `make update'
> > rather than a problem with global variables.
> >
> > Adam
>
> I disagree. A package (e.g. SASL) might allow other packages to be
> built with additional functionality. But one doesn't necessarily want
> this functionality in _all_ packages
>
> /Daniel

I don"t think we"re on the same page here.  I'm not sure what exactly 
you're disagreeing with but I don't think it's what I'm trying to say.

Adam