Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:54:44 +0200 From: Radim Kolar <hsn@netmag.cz> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: configuring ports via Makefile.local Message-ID: <20040730165444.GA36115@sanatana.dharma> In-Reply-To: <BF9C33C8-DFB4-11D8-BCFE-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> References: <20040727122823.40c6c3c5@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <BF9C33C8-DFB4-11D8-BCFE-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Porter handbook section about port options must be changed in any case. OPTIONS= are also not documented there. In any case (makefile.local and options)port.pre.mk must be included before making tests against customized options set by user. I am willing to write this porter handbook update. > 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. I do not know about this conversion time line. Makefile.local and OPTIONS can both co-exist.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040730165444.GA36115>