From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Mar 13 03:02:15 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 1284616A4CE
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 03:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.netcologne.de (smtp2.netcologne.de [194.8.194.218])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6FF43D1D
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 03:02:11 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from thomas@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org)
Received: from laurel.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-195-14-204-159.netcologne.de
	[195.14.204.159])
	by smtp2.netcologne.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 713EB3A2E5
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 13 Mar 2004 12:02:09 +0100 (MET)
Received: (qmail 764 invoked by uid 1001); 13 Mar 2004 11:01:45 -0000
Date: 13 Mar 2004 11:01:45 -0000
Message-ID: <20040313110145.763.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org>
From: tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck)
To: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru>
Organization: private site
In-Reply-To: <40525B05.6090109@ciam.ru>
X-Newsgroups: gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports
X-Attribution: tms
cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: default OPTIONS aren't the default when BATCH is set
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 11:02:15 -0000

* Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru> [gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports]:

> There is a workaround while it's not fixed:
> OPTIONS=        SOME_DEFAULT "..." on
> WITH_SOME_DEFAULT?=     yes

That looks bogus to me. The ?= does not make sense for variables
which are checked for definedness only (?= is the same as = since you
cannot 'unset' the variable on the commandline) and IMO it is sufficient
to fix the port's options parser to check for WITHOUT_OPTION_FOO when
'foo' defaults to 'on'. At least this is how I do it in my ports.