[52043] trunk/dports/tex/texlive_base

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 09:33, Emmanuel Hainry wrote:

> Citando Jeremy Huddleston :
>
>> xdvi can use either motif or xaw.  It builds binaries for both if  
>> both
>> are available.
>>
>> xdvi-motif.bin is the file that actually links against it.
>>
>>>> +                port:xorg-libXaw lib:libXm:openmotif
>
> Wouldn't it be better to enforce one of the two toolkits and put the
> other in a variant?

Often, having fewer variants is better. If the software can be  
compiled to support both xaw and motif at the same time, with  
selection via a config file, then this may be the best option.

A possible reason to prefer variants is if openmotif is a very large  
dependency that takes a long time to build.

> Something like
>
> configure.args-append --with-xdvi-x-toolkit=xaw
> variant motif {
> 	configure.args-delete --with-xdvi-x-toolkit=xaw
> 	configure.args-append --with-xdvi-x-toolkit=motif
> 	depends_lib-delete	port:xorg-libXaw
> 	depends_lib-append	lib:libXm:openmotif
> }

If you're going to have a compile-time choice between xaw and motif,  
then it would be best to have two variants, one called xaw and one  
called motif, which are marked as conflicting with one another, and  
the port should select one of these by default, and prevent the  
deselection of both variants simultaneously. This makes it clear to  
the user that there is a choice between two alternatives. There are  
several ports that exemplify this strategy (pdftk's compiler  
selection, minivmac version 2's emulator selection).