From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 30 20:08:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC6316A4CE for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:08:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.rdsnet.ro (smtp.rdsnet.ro [62.231.74.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3532C43D49 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:08:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: (qmail 6747 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jul 2004 20:07:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO it.buh.tecnik93.com) (81.196.204.98) by 0 with SMTP; 30 Jul 2004 20:07:14 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.buh.tecnik93.com [127.0.0.1]) by it.buh.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A91610C; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:07:08 +0300 (EEST) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (it.buh.tecnik93.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13798-05; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:07:07 +0300 (EEST) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (localhost.buh.tecnik93.com [127.0.0.1]) by it.buh.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D1C71B0; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:07:06 +0300 (EEST) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:07:05 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: Ulrich Spoerlein Message-Id: <20040730230705.3e803f8e@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <20040730184715.GA768@galgenberg.net> References: <20040727122823.40c6c3c5@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <20040730165444.GA36115@sanatana.dharma> <20040730184715.GA768@galgenberg.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: Radim Kolar Subject: Re: configuring ports via Makefile.local X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:08:58 -0000 On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:47:15 +0200 Ulrich Spoerlein wrote: > On Fri, 30.07.2004 at 18:54:44 +0200, Radim Kolar wrote: > > Supporting Makefile.local is a good idea. It allows per-port > > configuration without using external tools like portupgrade and > > without making some obscure constructs in make.conf. It is easy to > > understand and port subsystem already handles it for last 5 years > > and there is a policy about not committing makefile.local into ports > > tree. There is no reason for throwing makefile.local away. > > It only works with a R/W ports tree, and only if that ports tree is > not shared across several machines, as is the common case. Therefore > these options need to be host-specific. Putting them into the ports > tree is a bad idea IMHO. You loose all changes when doing 'rm -rf > /usr/ports' for example. > > > > To make it `supported' it has the be documented somewhere, which > > > is something I won't like to see. > > Do you want to see OPTIONS= as only method supported? Converting all > > ports into OPTIONS= is also solution of this problem. > > Please NO! OPTIONS are very ugly, IMHO. Imagine installing a new > system and running a massive portinstall. setenv BATCH=YES or WITH_BLA_BLA=CUCU for this case works. > The only real solutions IMHO are the make.conf approach (which works > in all cases), or the pkgtools.conf approach (which horribly fails in > the 'fresh install' case, but is otherwise a good solution). > > It looks like people are not aware of the possibilities with > make.conf, which led to all those half-working methods. OPTIONS are a very good thing, IMO. The lack some features, but are easy to use, esp. for newbies. Looking_at_and_understanding a Makefile takes time. After doing a few ports I can say I understand about 75% of what bsd.ports.mk _does_and_how_ , but bsd.python.mk for example is uncharted land for me. Plus OPTIONS (seems to want to) provide some sort of versioning.. Recently andreas@ pointed me that wanting to change the meaning of WITHUOT_SOMETING would at least confuse users. This versioning should somehow warn users about this kind of problems. -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"