cvs commit: ports/sysutils/xfce4-utils Makefile

[Chris Rees]

On 20 Dec 2011 06:53, "Chris Rees" <crees at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On 20 Dec 2011 00:11, "Doug Barton" <dougb at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/19/2011 02:03, Chris Rees wrote:
> > >
> > > On 19 Dec 2011 09:59, "Doug Barton" <dougb at freebsd.org
> > > <mailto:dougb at freebsd.org>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, that's 1/3 of the job done. :)  The problem is that the
current
> > >> OPTION creates the false idea that the only way you can lock your
screen
> > >> is to use xlockmore.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps you missed my followup where I mentioned that the next step
> > >> would be to add an OPTION for xscreensaver as well, and the logic to
> > >> avoid having them both defined.
> > >
> > > I'll look at that later.
> >
> > Thanks. In answer to your question avoiding having both enabled would be
> > nice since it avoids duplicate, unnecessary redundancy.
> >
> > >> Better yet would be to detect if one or the other is already
installed,
> > >> and default the OPTIONS accordingly.
> > >
> > > Autodetection in ports? No thanks!
> >
> > I didn't suggest autodetecting for the dependencies, I suggested it for
> > the OPTIONS. That's been done for a long time, and ideally should be how
> > it's always done.
>
> Ok... a pointer on how that's done would be good.
>
> The only way I can think of would be:
>
> .if exists(${LOCALBASE}/bin/xlock)
> OPTIONS+= XLOCK "Use xlock for 'lock screen'" on
> .else
> OPTIONS+= XLOCK "Use xlock for 'lock screen'" off
> .endif
>
> which would be great if LOCALBASE were actually defined before
> bsd.port.options.mk.
>
> I can't see a way to do this.  Do you have an example port?
>

Ok, so anyone have a better way to autodetect default options than this?

http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/xfce4-utils-xlock-dependency.diff

I don't like this, but if enough people are desperate and fellow xfce guys
don't object I suppose it works.

Chris