Opened 22 years ago
Last modified 4 months ago
#126 closed enhancement
dependencies need to allow inclusion of variant — at Version 16
| Reported by: | jpm@… | Owned by: | darwinports-bugs@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | MacPorts Future |
| Component: | base | Version: | |
| Keywords: | Cc: | narf_tm@…, nox@…, clubjuggler@…, macsforever2000@…, illogical1@…, myschizobuddy@…, ryandesign@… | |
| Port: |
Description (last modified by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt))
some ports will never be installed directly but rather as dependencies from other. it would be nice to allow the top level port to define a specific variant in its dependency rather than always dealing with the lowest common denominator...
Change History (16)
comment:1 Changed 22 years ago by kevin@…
comment:2 Changed 22 years ago by kevin@…
| Status: | new → assigned |
|---|
Yes, this should be part of a larger goal to specify arbitrary options in a dependency. My current thinking is something along the lines of the following:
{bin:nethack:nethack +x11 option=value}
comment:3 Changed 19 years ago by kevin@…
| Owner: | changed from kevin@… to darwinports-bugs@… |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → new |
Reassigning bugs in my queue to where they belong.
comment:4 Changed 19 years ago by toby@…
| Cc: | narf_tm@… added |
|---|
comment:6 Changed 17 years ago by pipping@…
| Milestone: | → MacPorts 1.5 |
|---|
comment:7 Changed 17 years ago by nox@…
| Cc: | narf_tm@… nox@… added; narf_tm@… removed |
|---|
comment:8 Changed 17 years ago by nox@…
| Version: | 1.0 |
|---|
comment:9 Changed 17 years ago by nox@…
| Priority: | Expected → Normal |
|---|
comment:10 Changed 16 years ago by jmpp@…
| Milestone: | MacPorts 1.5 → MacPorts base enhancements |
|---|
comment:15 Changed 16 years ago by myschizobuddy@…
Now that a new PortMgr team is announced. would we see this in Macports soon?
comment:16 Changed 16 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
| Cc: | ryandesign@… added |
|---|---|
| Description: | modified (diff) |
I think this bug was probably filed before any of the new PortMgr team ever heard of MacPorts. :) As least, it predates my involvement in the project, so it is nowhere on my list of things to do yet. I see Paul has been doing some work that may relate to this ticket (see r41526) but if you would like to discuss why this should be implemented and how it could be done, by all means bring it up on macports-dev. When a consensus is reached, more code can be written.
* Bug 127 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *