Re: Options vs. Binary packages

[Dennis den Brok <d.den.brok%uni-bonn.de@localhost>]

Jeremy C. Reed <reed%reedmedia.net@localhost> schrieb:
>> Yes. We should never have an available package require unavailable 
>> dependency.
>
> Looking again, I see I forgot mplayer is still restricted.
>
> Nevertheless, may I still commit the following?
>
>> May I commit this patch for mplayer? (I did this yesterday.)
>> 
>> It has been noted many times that the codecs included are good enough.
>> 
>> Index: mplayer-share/options.mk
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvsroot/pkgsrc/multimedia/mplayer-share/options.mk,v
>> retrieving revision 1.33
>> diff -u -r1.33 options.mk
>> --- mplayer-share/options.mk 9 Sep 2008 01:11:53 -0000       1.33
>> +++ mplayer-share/options.mk 18 Sep 2008 16:11:12 -0000
>> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
>>  PKG_SUPPORTED_OPTIONS+= mplayer-runtime-cpudetection
>>  .endif
>>  .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "i386"
>> -PKG_SUPPORTED_OPTIONS+= mplayer-default-cflags mplayer-win32
>> +PKG_SUPPORTED_OPTIONS+= mplayer-default-cflags
>>  .endif
>>  .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "i386" || ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "powerpc" || \
>>      ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "alpha"
>> 
>> Also I will bump PKGREVISION for gmplayer, mencoder, mplayer and 
>> mplayer-share. Do those sound correct?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

I don't know whether win32-codecs are 100% redundant... maybe play
safe and just alter PKG_SUGGESTED_OPTIONS?

--
Dennis den Brok