gtk2 and gtk3 ports and +x11 vs +quartz variant worries

[Ken Cunningham]

> 
> 
> These are all legitimate and in my experience tend to come from trying to switch from building +x11 to building +quartz
> without "cleaning the slate" as it were.  I always do this when switching like this (say with gimp2 that can build
> either way).
> 
> sudo port install gimp2 (implied +x11 since it builds with x11 by default)
> sudo port deactivate active
> sudo port install gimp2 +quartz
> 
> This ensures that all the various sub-dependencies get built in the correct flavor.
> 
> Or install a separate MacPorts instance for building +quartz.  I've successfully done this as well.
> 
> I run into these issues alot with the GNOME ports because some GNOME ports can build +quartz but not all.  In
> particular, ports that are part of the GNOME desktop infrastructure (e.g. gnome-desktop, gnome-settings-daemon) still
> use X11 features directly and thus can't be built +quartz.  Others, like gcr, are just old implementations that use some
> X11 hack instead of porting to a backend agnostic gtk3 implementation.
> 
> My general guidelines are this: if there is no +quartz variant, it builds with X11.  This includes ports with no variant
> at all.  Only ports with +quartz variants should be assumed to build that way.
> 
> Dave
> 

Very helpful, thanks Dave.

It’s true — I had decided to go with +quartz (why not, I thought) but then something I wanted to install required +x11 along the way and I blew things up when I tried to satisfy that dependency.

 I see there was a similar thread on the dev list that I noticed afterwards. 

Would there be use for a list or table of gtk ports that are only available in either quartz or x11 variants, but not both, so someone might know going in before they start which way to lean? Perhaps I might work on creating something like that, for my own education if for no other reason.

I can see the logic behind the separate installation for the other variant.

Thanks again,

Ken