On Dec 6, 2012, at 00:45, g...@macports.org wrote:
> Revision: 100265
> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/100265
> Author: g...@macports.org
> Date: 2012-12-05 22:45:07 -0800 (Wed, 05 Dec 2012)
> Log Message:
> -----------
> python/py-cairo:
> - unified using python portgroup
> - check for cairo variant using active_variants
> - use setup.py install method
> - new maintainer
>
> Modified Paths:
> --------------
> trunk/dports/python/py-cairo/Portfile
> +post-configure {
> + if {[variant_isset x11]} {
> + require_active_variants cairo x11
> + }
> +}
> +variant x11 {}
I think it would be clearer if you placed the code relating to the x11 variant
into the x11 variant. Otherwise it looks, at quick glance, as if an empty
variant is being declared.
variant x11 {
post-configure {
require_active_variants cairo x11
}
}
On a side note, why does the active_variants portgroup require the consumer to
enclose the require_active_variants invocation in a post-configure block? Why
can't the portgroup do that on its own, like the conflicts_build portgroup
does? Anyway shouldn't it be pre-configure not post-configure?
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
