Bug 68512 - [ patch ] x11-wm/fluxbox-devel: remove unneeded run deps and docs fix
Summary: [ patch ] x11-wm/fluxbox-devel: remove unneeded run deps and docs fix
Status: Closed FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: Normal Affects Only Me
Assignee: Jeremy Messenger
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-06-30 13:50 UTC by Roman Bogorodskiy
Modified: 2004-07-01 05:30 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments
file.diff (3.28 KB, patch)
2004-06-30 13:50 UTC, Roman Bogorodskiy
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Roman Bogorodskiy 2004-06-30 13:50:25 UTC
	- Remove run depends on boxtools and xterm for the following reasons:
		1. bsetbg is not needed becouse there is fbsetbg in the fluxbox
		   distro and most their options are common. As for style 
		   portability, many styles use Esetroot as well as bsetbg, so
		   that's not the reason to make fluxbox depend on Eterm, is 
		   it? (BTW, no one of "boxes" in ports tree doesn't have run 
		   depend on boxtools as I can see)
		
		2. IMHO, fluxbox should not have a run depend on xterm, 
	           USE_X_PREFIX is enougth.
	
	- A few words about docs: if fluxbox-devel configured without html and 
	pdf docs support, the docs dir will not be created, but there is an
	entry for it in pkg-plist: @dirrm %%DOCSDIR%%. It'll couse warning on 
	deinstall. IMHO, it's better to install the standart docs (NEWS, 
	AUTHORS, etc) when NOPORTDOCS is not defined. If NOPORTDOCS is defined,
	we dissallow for user to install html or pdf docs (maybe even some 
	warrning message should be displayed when WITH_DOC(PDF|HTML) and
	NOPORTDOCS displayed together?).
Comment 1 Adam Weinberger freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2004-06-30 16:36:25 UTC
>> (06.30.2004 @ 0849 PST): Roman Bogorodskiy said, in 5.3K: <<
> 		1. bsetbg is not needed becouse there is fbsetbg in the fluxbox
> 		   distro and most their options are common.

Not really. fbsetbg can only set a background to an image, and cannot
set the background to a texture. bsetbg can only set a background to a
texture, and cannot set the background to an image.

> 	- A few words about docs: if fluxbox-devel configured without html and 
> 	pdf docs support, the docs dir will not be created, but there is an
> 	entry for it in pkg-plist: @dirrm %%DOCSDIR%%. It'll couse warning on 
> 	deinstall.

Agreed. %%PORTDOCS%%@dirrm %%DOCSDIR%% is the way to go.

>	IMHO, it's better to install the standart docs (NEWS, 
> 	AUTHORS, etc) when NOPORTDOCS is not defined. If NOPORTDOCS is defined,
> 	we dissallow for user to install html or pdf docs (maybe even some 
> 	warrning message should be displayed when WITH_DOC(PDF|HTML) and
> 	NOPORTDOCS displayed together?).  

Why? A user has to manually specify WITH_DOC*.

# Adam


--
Adam Weinberger
adamw@magnesium.net || adamw@FreeBSD.org
adamw@vectors.cx    ||   adamw@gnome.org
http://www.vectors.cx
Comment 2 Volker Stolz freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2004-06-30 16:56:20 UTC
Responsible Changed
From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->mezz

Over to maintainer
Comment 3 Roman Bogorodskiy 2004-06-30 17:00:14 UTC
 Adam wrote:

> >> (06.30.2004 @ 0849 PST): Roman Bogorodskiy said, in 5.3K: <<
> > 		1. bsetbg is not needed becouse there is fbsetbg in the fluxbox
> > 		   distro and most their options are common.
> 
> Not really. fbsetbg can only set a background to an image, and cannot
> set the background to a texture. bsetbg can only set a background to a
> texture, and cannot set the background to an image.


fbsetbg is a "front-end" for background setters, and bsetbg is actually
the same. If you want to set some texture as a background, you may use
bsetroot (which comes with fluxbox, but for some reasons disabled in
port), if you want to set an  image as a background you can use some more
powerful wallpaper setter like Esetroot via fbsetbg or bsetbg. 
So, fbsetbg is the same that bsetbg, but has some new fetures and
supports more wallpaper setters.

> >	IMHO, it's better to install the standart docs (NEWS, 
> > 	AUTHORS, etc) when NOPORTDOCS is not defined. If NOPORTDOCS is defined,
> > 	we dissallow for user to install html or pdf docs (maybe even some 
> > 	warrning message should be displayed when WITH_DOC(PDF|HTML) and
> > 	NOPORTDOCS displayed together?).  
> 
> Why? A user has to manually specify WITH_DOC*.


IMHO, if user defines NOPORTDOCS that means that one don't want to have any 
kind of docs, doesn't it? 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks. 

-Roman Bogorodskiy
Comment 4 Jeremy Messenger 2004-06-30 19:12:22 UTC
>    1. bsetbg is not needed becouse there is fbsetbg in the fluxbox
>    distro and most their options are common.

It has the reason to disable the bsetroot and depend on boxtools to avoid  
in the conflict with blackbox. The boxtools has bsetbg and bsetroot, which  
is what fbsetbg and styles will need bsetroot. It doesn't mean you have to  
use bsetbg, but only on bsetroot.

Maybe, I should change from bsetbg to bsetroot for the less misunderstand.  
boxtools will install both bsetbg and bsetroot.

>    As for style portability, many styles use Esetroot as well as
>    bsetbg, so that's not the reason to make fluxbox depend on Eterm,
>    is it? (BTW, no one of "boxes" in ports tree doesn't have run 
>    depend on boxtools as I can see)

No, all styles (came with fluxbox tarball) depend on bsetroot by default.  
The fsetbg will find if bsetroot, Esetroot, XV, wmsetbg, xsetbg, feh and  
other stuff exist then use one of them by edit the styles. Whomever  
download or create the unoffical style that depend on one of different  
than bsetroot is not my problem.

>    2. IMHO, fluxbox should not have a run depend on xterm,
>    USE_X_PREFIX is enougth.

I agree, it's what I am planning to remove both build and run depend of  
XFree86-4-clients in the next version. I can do it soon if you want me to.


As for add the DOCS is what I am planning to do next version (I start to  
do that on my ports). Only thing that I disagree is about get  
WITH_DOC(PDF|HTML) to work with NOPORTDOCS. Because WITH_DOC(PDF|HTML)  
are/will never install by default. Why not default? Because, it's not  
install by fluxbox by default and it's not part of fluxbox tarball.

Cheers,
Mezz


-- 
mezz7@cox.net  -  mezz@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Comment 5 Jeremy Messenger freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2004-06-30 22:41:12 UTC
State Changed
From-To: open->closed

Committed, thanks!
Comment 6 Roman Bogorodskiy 2004-07-01 04:38:09 UTC
 Jeremy wrote:

> It has the reason to disable the bsetroot and depend on boxtools to avoid  
> in the conflict with blackbox.   


Hm... maybe it's better to add blackbox to CONFLICTS like fluxbox-0.1?
 
> As for add the DOCS is what I am planning to do next version (I start to  
> do that on my ports). Only thing that I disagree is about get  
> WITH_DOC(PDF|HTML) to work with NOPORTDOCS. Because WITH_DOC(PDF|HTML)  
> are/will never install by default. Why not default? Because, it's not  
> install by fluxbox by default and it's not part of fluxbox tarball.


You're right. 

-Roman Bogorodskiy
Comment 7 Jeremy Messenger 2004-07-01 04:56:06 UTC
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:38:09 +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy  
<bogorodskiy@inbox.ru> wrote:

>  Jeremy wrote:
>
>> It has the reason to disable the bsetroot and depend on boxtools to  
>> avoid
>> in the conflict with blackbox.
>
> Hm... maybe it's better to add blackbox to CONFLICTS like fluxbox-0.1?

I still disagree, so why do you want that? What's your reason? I suggest  
you to beg to the fluxbox developers for rename bsetroot to fsetroot.

Cheers,
Mezz

> -Roman Bogorodskiy


-- 
mezz7@cox.net  -  mezz@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Comment 8 Roman Bogorodskiy 2004-07-01 05:03:33 UTC
 Jeremy wrote:

> I still disagree, so why do you want that? What's your reason? I suggest  
> you to beg to the fluxbox developers for rename bsetroot to fsetroot.


My reason is: bsetroot comes with fluxbox, fluxbox' themes use bsetroot,
so why do I need to install something else? And I don't think that's it 
is common situation when blacbox and fluxbox are used together. Anyway,
if you keep depend on boxtools nothing bad will not happened. :)

-Roman Bogorodskiy
Comment 9 Jeremy Messenger 2004-07-01 05:19:18 UTC
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 08:03:33 +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy  
<bogorodskiy@inbox.ru> wrote:

>  Jeremy wrote:
>
>> I still disagree, so why do you want that? What's your reason? I suggest
>> you to beg to the fluxbox developers for rename bsetroot to fsetroot.
>
> My reason is: bsetroot comes with fluxbox, fluxbox' themes use bsetroot,
> so why do I need to install something else?

This doesn't make any sense, because boxtools install bsetroot and  
fluxbox's themes will use it. So... This is not a very good reason and no  
point. The boxtools is very small and I will not take that as excuse just  
because you don't want to depend on something else or want to the save  
space. To have the ability of install blackbox and fluxbox on the same  
machine is good.

> And I don't think that's it is common situation when blacbox and fluxbox
> are used together.

I do have both installed on two machines, because I have about 20  
users/friends and none of them like the same things. ;-)

> Anyway, if you keep depend on boxtools nothing bad will not happened. :)
>
> -Roman Bogorodskiy


-- 
mezz7@cox.net  -  mezz@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Comment 10 Roman Bogorodskiy 2004-07-01 05:24:48 UTC
 Jeremy wrote:

> This doesn't make any sense, because boxtools install bsetroot and  
> fluxbox's themes will use it. So... This is not a very good reason and no  
> point. The boxtools is very small and I will not take that as excuse just  
> because you don't want to depend on something else or want to the save  
> space. To have the ability of install blackbox and fluxbox on the same  
> machine is good.


Yes, you're right. 

-Roman Bogorodskiy