On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 12:43:54PM -0800, Johnny C. Lam wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 05:53:25PM +0100, Bernd Ernesti wrote:
> > 
> > I currently have a aalib-x11 installed on my system, because mplayer
> > wants it.
> > Now I am trying to install gphoto2, which now wants aalib.
> > And here is the problem, both aalib and aalib-x11 have a CONFLICTS
> > line for the other package.
> > 
> > Normaly that wouldn't be a problem if thats a DEPENDS line in the
> > gphoto2 package, but it is an buildlink.mk include and there seems
> > to be no good way to fix this problem.
> 
> Do you know if aalib-x11 is a "superset" of aalib?  By this, I'm asking

Yes, I think so.

The main difference is the 'CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --with-x11-driver=no' in the
aalib Makefile.

> if something wants just aalib, will aalib-x11 also suffice?  If so, then
> we can combine their buildlink.mk files and rewrite dependencies by
> changing:
> 
> 	DEPENDS+=	aalib-[0-9]*:../../graphics/aalib
> 
> into:
> 
> 	DEPENDS+=	aalib{,-x11}-[0-9]*:../../graphics/aalib-x11

Hmm, and that will result in a problem with binary packages.

aalib and aalib-x11 install the same files, thats why the are conflicting.

I can see why gphoto2 use aalib, there is no need for X11 support since
gphoto2 has no x11 interface, if you want one you have to use gtkam.

But gtkam use the gphoto2 buildlink file and therefor only gets the
aalib dependecy, and I don't know if thats enough for gtkam.
I changed my local gphoto2 Makefile to use aalib-x11 instead of aalib
to get it working for now on.

> Please file a PR on this problem, as I think there is definitely something
> wrong with the aalib buildlink.mk files.

I do that tomorrow.

Bernd