On 20 Dec 2011 00:11, "Doug Barton" <do...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 12/19/2011 02:03, Chris Rees wrote: > > > > On 19 Dec 2011 09:59, "Doug Barton" <do...@freebsd.org > > <mailto:do...@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? Chris _______________________________________________ freebsd-xfce@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xfce To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xfce-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"