variants

[David Strubbe]

Then maybe we could have an option to pass down default variants?

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Bradley Giesbrecht <pixilla at macports.org>
wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Daniel J. Luke <dluke at geeklair.net>
>  wrote:
>
>> On Apr 10, 2016, at 4:01 AM, Takeshi Enomoto <takeshi at macports.org>
>> wrote:
>> > If there is a reason behind treating default_variants and manually set
>> variants,
>> > I’d like to know.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the initial reasoning was, but I think the current
>> behavior is correct.
>>
>> When a port is installed as a dependency of some other port, it should be
>> installed the same way as if it were installed manually first.
>>
>> ie. A requires B:
>>
>> port install A
>> and
>>
>> port install B && port install A
>>
>> should result in the same final install.
>>
>
> On Apr 11, 2016, at 12:29 PM, David Strubbe <dstrubbe at macports.org> wrote:
>
> Well, that is not the current behavior if a variant is specified manually.
> What happens is:
>
> port install A +var
>
> does
>
> port install B +var && port install A +var.
>
> Why do you think it would be inappropriate to do that for default variants?
>
>
> Binaries are only provided for default variants so you might loose binary
> packages for dependencies due to variants you don’t care about in the
> dependency.
>
>
> Regards,
> Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20160411/61635e4a/attachment.html>