Summary: | Fix: x11/wdm | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | cpiazza <cpiazza> |
Component: | Individual Port(s) | Assignee: | freebsd-ports (Nobody) <ports> |
Status: | Closed FIXED | ||
Severity: | Affects Only Me | ||
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | Latest | ||
Hardware: | Any | ||
OS: | Any |
Description
cpiazza
1999-05-01 02:10:00 UTC
State Changed From-To: open->closed Committed, thanks On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 cpiazza@home.net wrote: # # Index: wdm/Makefile # =================================================================== # RCS file: /cvs/FreeBSD/ports/x11/wdm/Makefile,v # retrieving revision 1.20 # diff -u -r1.20 Makefile # --- Makefile 1999/04/13 06:48:44 1.20 # +++ Makefile 1999/05/01 00:45:50 # @@ -14,12 +14,14 @@ # # MAINTAINER= ports@FreeBSD.ORG # # +BUILD_DEPENDS= ${X11BASE}/lib/libWINGs.a:${PORTSDIR}/x11-wm/windowmaker This I can see ... # LIB_DEPENDS= Xpm.4:${PORTSDIR}/graphics/xpm \ # gif.3:${PORTSDIR}/graphics/giflib \ # jpeg.9:${PORTSDIR}/graphics/jpeg \ # png.3:${PORTSDIR}/graphics/png \ # tiff.4:${PORTSDIR}/graphics/tiff34 \ # PropList.1:${PORTSDIR}/devel/libPropList # +RUN_DEPENDS= ${X11BASE}/lib/libWINGs.a:${PORTSDIR}/x11-wm/windowmaker ... but this? Does it really RUN_DEPEND on a static library? How about just having a line like this: LIB_DEPENDS= wraster.2:${PORTSDIR}/x11-wm/windowmaker # EXTRACT_ONLY= ${DISTNAME}${EXTRACT_SUFX} # DIST_SUBDIR= wdm # # -Chris ># +RUN_DEPENDS= ${X11BASE}/lib/libWINGs.a:${PORTSDIR}/x11-wm/windowmaker > > ... but this? Does it really RUN_DEPEND on a static library? > How about just having a line like this: > > LIB_DEPENDS= wraster.2:${PORTSDIR}/x11-wm/windowmaker > Ahh!! I had a brain block and couldn't put that together, I kept trying libwraster.2. Yes, that's how it should be - I just made it RUN_DEPENDS on it so it would not be deleted. Same effect, anyway. --- Chris Piazza Abbotsford, BC, Canada cpiazza@home.net finger norn@norn.ca.eu.org for PGP key * From: Chris Piazza <cpiazza@home.net> * Ahh!! I had a brain block and couldn't put that together, I kept trying * libwraster.2. Yes, that's how it should be - I just made it RUN_DEPENDS on it * so it would not be deleted. Same effect, anyway. Not to nitpick, but it's not the same -- if you have something that's needed during compilation, and RUN_DEPENDS on it, the build will fail since the dependency will be checked too late.... :) -PW On 01-May-99 Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: > * From: Chris Piazza <cpiazza@home.net> > > * Ahh!! I had a brain block and couldn't put that together, I kept trying > * libwraster.2. Yes, that's how it should be - I just made it RUN_DEPENDS > on it > * so it would not be deleted. Same effect, anyway. > > Not to nitpick, but it's not the same -- if you have something that's > needed during compilation, and RUN_DEPENDS on it, the build will fail > since the dependency will be checked too late.... :) > > -PW I had it BUILD_DEPENDS and RUN_DEPENDS. ugly, yes, but like I said above, I just couldn't think and didn't use the shared library. --- Chris Piazza Abbotsford, BC, Canada cpiazza@home.net finger norn@norn.ca.eu.org for PGP key |