Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:19:54 +0800 From: wen heping <wenheping@gmail.com> To: bf1783@gmail.com Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, Sahil Tandon <sahil@freebsd.org>, Wen Heping <wen@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils/tmux Makefile Message-ID: <BANLkTiko8UJuR8gBOmqKGXYKkzuz-p590Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik344RMoiKtSejSxmEa14WNAR1x4Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <201106160842.p5G8gS6T054738@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110616164733.GA40181@FreeBSD.org> <20110617004742.GD19139@magic.hamla.org> <BANLkTik344RMoiKtSejSxmEa14WNAR1x4Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/6/17 b. f. <bf1783@googlemail.com>: > On 6/17/11, Sahil Tandon <sahil@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 16:47:33 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 08:42:28AM +0000, Wen Heping wrote: >>> > wen 2011-06-16 08:42:28 UTC >>> > >>> > Modified files: >>> > sysutils/tmux Makefile >>> > Log: >>> > - Fix build when CFLAGS is set in /etc/make.conf >>> >>> Hmm, default CPPFLAGS is empty. Judging just from the diff, instead of >>> introducing EXTRA_CPPFLAGS, setting CPPFLAGS instead of CFLAGS (which is >>> bogus in the first place: -I is preprocessor flag) should be enough (no >>> MAKE_ENV adjustment and extra REINPLACE_CMD hack would be required in this >>> case as well). I am missing something obvious here? >> >> Because of the way upstream Makefile handles CPPFLAGS, it is not so >> straightforward. This was discussed on freebsd-ports: >> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-June/068218.html >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-May/067930.html > > But this does not seem so different from the many other ports that set > or alter variables in the port Makefile. If a user overrides these > changes in an automatically and recursively-included Makefile like > __MAKE_CONF, or on the command-line, it it the user's problem. Users > should not pollute their port builds by unconditionally defining > variables in __MAKE_CONF, and I don't think that we should add > elaborations to ports to avoid such mistakes. If the submitter of > ports/157918 wanted non-default CFLAGS for sysutils/tmux, and he > wanted to define them in __MAKE_CONF, rather than in the other > automatically-included Makefiles (${.CURDIR}/../Makefile.inc, > ${MASTERDIR}/../Makefile.inc, ${MASTERDIR}/Makefile.${ARCH}-${OPSYS}, > ${MASTERDIR}/Makefile.${OPSYS}, ${MASTERDIR}/Makefile.${ARCH}, or > ${MASTERDIR}/Makefile.local), then he could have defined them > conditionally. If he doesn't, he will break many other ports besides > systutils/tmux. > > So it seems to me that just fixing CPPFLAGS here is better. We tried just fixing CPPFLAGS, but it fail when define CPPFLAGS in /etc/make.conf. wen > > b. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTiko8UJuR8gBOmqKGXYKkzuz-p590Q>