Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 17:43:48 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Cc: Volker Stolz <vs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: USE_QT_VER after including bsd.port.pre.mk? Message-ID: <409668B4.30901@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <200405031728.36587.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <20040503122023.GF27940@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> <40963ECD.6030901@fillmore-labs.com> <200405031728.36587.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Nottebrock wrote: > On Monday 03 May 2004 14:45, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > >>Volker Stolz wrote: >> >>>For one of my ports, portlint now complaints: >>>FATAL: Makefile [61]: USE_QT_VER is set after including bsd.port.pre.mk. >>> >>>I'm really at a loss on how to fix this, since USE_QT_VER depends on >>>OPTIONS in my case. Is there something like an approved workaround? >>>E.g. splitting this in master/slave(s)? >> >>A fix would be son-of-PR 64233, but currently that's far behind in my >>queue, because it's absolutely no fun to work on it. > > So why was portlint changed prematurely? Surely confusing port maintainers > serves no purpose? It wasn't changed prematurely. You have to specify USE_QT_VER *before* including bsd.port.pre.mk, using OPTIONS or not. OTOH, you can only check OPTIONS *after* including bsd.port.pre.mk. IMHO both are bugs in bsd.port.mk, see also the discussion in PR 57496. As a workaround I (personally) refrain from using OPTIONS in my ports until the problems are fixed. -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?409668B4.30901>