We hit this in a number of places - such as differing java
	engines. We could have a meta package that depend on emacs or
	xemacs and on which all the emacs packages depend, then you
	isolate the 'fork' in one package, but I dont see how to fix
	it in the current package system without adding some magic to
	the package build system (and pkg_add for binary packages),
	or permitting the emacs sub packages to be installed without
	an editor (remove the emacs DEPENDS altogether)


-- 
		David/absolute		-- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --


On Fri, 25 May 2001 mcmahill@mtl.mit.edu wrote:

>
>
>
> that sounds like a good idea.
>
> Now, any thoughts on the DEPENDS section?
>
> DEPENDS+=	{emacs-[0-9]*,xemacs-[0-9]*}:../../editors/emacs
>
> maybe?  Although i worry about the either/or depends scheme.  gives
> different results depending on whats installed....
>
> -Dan
>
>
> > 	Can the emacs and xemacs pckages be modified to include a shared
> > 	'extra lisp fun' directory, and then the extra packages installed
> > 	there?
> >
> > --
> > 		David/absolute		-- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 24 May 2001 mcmahill@mtl.mit.edu wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > oh, and my other question is this:  What if i want the package to work
> > > under both emacs _and_ xemacs at once?  In case i have some users who want
> > > emacs and some who want xemacs?  Looking at math/calc as an example, I
> > > see:
> > >
> > > .include "../../mk/bsd.prefs.mk"
> > >
> > > .if defined(USE_XEMACS)
> > > MAKE_ENV+=      EMACS=xemacs
> > > DEPENDS+=       xemacs-[0-9]*:../../editors/xemacs
> > > SITE_LISP=      lib/xemacs/xemacs-packages/lisp
> > > .else
> > > MAKE_ENV+=      EMACS=emacs
> > > DEPENDS+=       emacs-[0-9]*:../../editors/emacs
> > > SITE_LISP=      share/emacs/site-lisp
> > > .endif
> > >
> > > PLIST_SUBST+=   SITE_LISP=${SITE_LISP}
> > >
> > > which basically says, it will only install to either emacs _or_ xemacs but
> > > not both.
> > >
> > > hmmm, more confusion.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 24 May 2001 mcmahill@mtl.mit.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 24 May 2001, Greywolf wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 24 May 2001 mcmahill@mtl.mit.edu wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > # Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > # From: mcmahill@mtl.mit.edu
> > > > > # To: tech-pkg@netbsd.org
> > > > > # Subject: emacs category?
> > > > > #
> > > > > #
> > > > > # I was wondering if we should perhaps create an emacs category for various
> > > > > # emacs packages?  Or would the preference be to try and put them in the
> > > > > # existing categories?  For example, would a, for example, 'algol-mode'
> > > > > # package go under "editors" (its for editing), "devel" (you only would use
> > > > > # it for editing a program), "lang" (to keep it with algol),?
> > > > >
> > > > > editors/emacs-extras?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > so
> > > >
> > > > editors/emacs-foo-mode
> > > > editors/emacs-bar-mode
> > > > editors/emacs-baz-mode
> > > >
> > > > etc?
> > > >
> > > > -Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>