On 06/dic/2012, at 09:42, Ryan Schmidt <ryandes...@macports.org> wrote:
> 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 > } > } > Yeah, silly me! :D > > 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? well, the only difference between putting the code in pre-configure and post-configure is, well, that configure gets executed, so pre-configure should save some time. I don't know why it has to be put in *-configure, but we can always change the portgroup... -- Aljaž Srebrnič a.k.a g5pw My public key: http://bit.ly/g5pw_pubkey _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
