Index: Makefile
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/ports/net/i2pd/Makefile,v
diff -u -p -r1.25 Makefile
--- Makefile 29 Aug 2024 15:49:13 -0000 1.25
+++ Makefile 29 Aug 2024 21:34:00 -0000
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ COMMENT = client for the I2P anonymous n
GH_ACCOUNT = PurpleI2P
GH_PROJECT = i2pd
GH_TAGNAME = 2.53.1
+REVISION = 0
CATEGORIES = net
HOMEPAGE = https://i2pd.website
@@ -12,14 +13,17 @@ PERMIT_PACKAGE = Yes
WANTLIB += ${COMPILER_LIBCXX} boost_atomic-mt boost_date_time-mt
WANTLIB += boost_filesystem-mt boost_program_options-mt boost_system-mt
-WANTLIB += c crypto m ssl z
+WANTLIB += c crypto m miniupnpc ssl z
COMPILER = base-clang ports-gcc
MODULES = devel/cmake
-LIB_DEPENDS = devel/boost
+LIB_DEPENDS = devel/boost \
+ net/miniupnp/miniupnpc
# for tests
USE_GMAKE = Yes
+
+CONFIGURE_ARGS = -DWITH_UPNP=ON
WRKSRC = ${WRKDIST}/build
>> I prefer to keep UPnP support as a flavor to avoid installing unnecessary
>> dependencies for users who do not need this functionality.
>
> we don't generally do that in ports, it increases the burden on people
> testing an update diff because then they need to check both versions
>
> if it doesn't change the behaviour unless a setting is also changed,
> we would usually not add a flavour
>
Thank you for informing me. I'm new to porting software to OpenBSD and
still learning the common practices. If this option doesn't alter the
software's behavior, would it be possible to apply Jeremie
Courreges-Anglas's diff?
No comments:
Post a Comment