[Bug 270989] print/ghostscript10: adds libgs.so; connects to USES and DEFAULT_VERSIONS facilities; flavorized
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 16:11:22 UTC
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=270989 --- Comment #19 from Michael Osipov <michael.osipov@siemens.com> --- (In reply to Chad Jacob Milios from comment #17) > i agree in a perfect world X11 should be made an option and FLAVOR should not be used here; i was only trying to more closely mimic the installation and behavior of the version 7 8 and 9 ports. And as you pointed out however, dependant ports cannot presently enforce OPTIONS in their dependencies. it makes sense some would depend on gs-x11 (which itself depends on gs-base), and allow others to simultaneously depend only on gs-base. > > The FLAVORS route (as with the separate-ports route of 7 8 and 9) was set up so the flavors dont conflict with one another, rather -x11 compliments -base (thats why i opted to keep those suffixes rather than go with '' vs -nox11, which to me seemed to imply based on my limited observations made thruout the ports tree that to have no suffix vs a -nox11 suffix would mean theyre mutually exclusive rather than could get installed together, and that the no-suffix version would encompass all the functionality of the lesser and then some) > > As you see, ghostscript9-agpl-x11 only installs the one file X11.so (ignoring the obligatory LICENSE in /usr/local/share) and i sought to work as similarly as is prudent I totally understand your objective here. It, unfortunately, doesn't work for 10 :-( > you're probably correct that my decision to put --disable-dynamic in the base flavor and --enable-dynamic in the x11 flavor would build X11.so as utter trash. that's why you're the maintainer and i'm just a pleb :) i'm not actually sure the true dependency graph between libgs.so, gsx, gs's X11.so, and/or any of the ports claiming dependency on ghostscript[789]-x11. i am unclear the context and greater ramifications of {en,dis}able-dynamic. See my preceding explanation. > i have seen ports that USES ghostscript:x11 simply because they themselves utilize x11 yet they're perfectly fine and full featured with libgs.so, without gs's X11.so. i agree the whole tree could use some cleanup around ghostscript and i'd be glad to help with that at your and/or diizzy's direction This needs an investigation. I am really now inclined that since X11 is one driver among many, to have it a disabled option by default. We can reconsider if someone starts to complain with a good reason for this. > i'm currently running a handful of X11 apps through their paces to figure out who actually dynamically links what exactly and why What you need to figure out whether they use any of the X11 devices at all, if not, they don't need X11. This is my understanding. (could be wrong) I will meanwhile rework patch for point 2 to a port option. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.