ports with bootstrapping dependencies

[Landon Fuller]

On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:39 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

>
> On Jun 25, 2007, at 09:46, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>
>> Actually, it occurs to me that it's not really necessary to declare a
>> dependency -- that it would suffice for the variant to have a command
>> that checks for the existence of an executable by some name, and to
>> refuse to continue if this command fails.
>
> I haven't really followed why all this complexity with the multiple  
> scheme ports is required -- I realize you tried to spell it out in  
> your first email but it was a bit much for me at the moment.
>
> But assuming it really is required, then yes, this is the method  
> that occurred to me as well: just test for the file's existence in,  
> say, the pre-fetch phase, and fail if not found. I don't, however,  
> know the portfile syntax for checking for a file's existence.
>
>> There was some recent
>> discussion about a `ui_fatal' command by which to fail, although I
>> understand that it was simply a proposal not yet implemented.  Does
>> this sound plausible, however?
>
> Not really needed, though, either. Just do ui_error "the message"  
> followed by exit 1. And, again, do this in the pre-fetch phase.

Calling "exit" from a Portfile will cause any front-end using the  
dports API to exit, no? That seems bad form.

-landonf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20070629/54c2add7/PGP.bin