[31362] trunk/dports/x11/gtk2/Portfile

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Nov 21, 2007, at 08:10, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:

> On Nov 21, 2007, at 7:16 AM, rhwood at macports.org wrote:
>
>>  * Add variants with[out]_quartz and with[out]_x11
>>  * Move x11-specific dependencies and configure/build settings to  
>> variant with_x11
>>  * Make +with_x11 +without_quartz the default variants
>>  * Include variants quartz and no_x11 as calls to with_quartz and  
>> without_x11 until such a time as they are no longer required
>>
>> +variant quartz requires with_quartz {}
>> +variant no_x11 requires without_x11 {}
>
> Why didn't you simply use the more standard "x11", "no_x11" and by  
> extension "quartz", "no_quartz" variant naming scheme rather than  
> this complex set of conflicting and required variants that you  
> used? Something we gtk2 outsiders aren't seeing that makes it  
> necessary?

Right. Quoting the revision further:

>> +# these variants are included for naming consistency with other  
>> similar ports
>> +# IMHO all ports should use with[out]_x or [en|dis]able_x as  
>> variant names
>> +variant quartz requires with_quartz {}
>> +variant no_x11 requires without_x11 {}

IMHO ports should NOT use this with[out]_x or [en|dis]able_x naming  
convention. The existing x or no_x naming convention works great and  
should be continued. I know there was a long thread on the mailing  
list before where you advocated the new naming scheme. I failed, and  
still fail, to see why it's better. I think it's worse.

I'm all for trying out new things in portfiles, so if you think it's  
better, by all means try it out for awhile. See how it goes.