Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:52:47 -0400 From: Sahil Tandon <sahil@tandon.net> To: "bf1783@gmail.com" <bf1783@gmail.com> Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, Sahil Tandon <sahil@freebsd.org>, Wen Heping <wen@freebsd.org>, "cvs-all@freebsd.org" <cvs-all@freebsd.org>, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org>, "cvs-ports@freebsd.org" <cvs-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils/tmux Makefile Message-ID: <0C0893AE-B699-4DAB-AD58-C6075349DC2F@tandon.net> 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
On Jun 16, 2011, at 11:57 PM, "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 6/17/11, Sahil Tandon <sahil@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 16:47:33 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >>=20 >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 08:42:28AM +0000, Wen Heping wrote: >>>> wen 2011-06-16 08:42:28 UTC >>>>=20 >>>> Modified files: >>>> sysutils/tmux Makefile >>>> Log: >>>> - Fix build when CFLAGS is set in /etc/make.conf >>>=20 >>> 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 th= is >>> case as well). I am missing something obvious here? >>=20 >> Because of the way upstream Makefile handles CPPFLAGS, it is not so >> straightforward. This was discussed on freebsd-ports: >>=20 >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-June/068218.html >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-May/067930.html >=20 > 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. =20 Yes and I think we get that and I personally agree with your sentiment; howe= ver, I'm not sure that means maintainers need to revert commits that were do= ne to prevent users from shooting their own foot.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0C0893AE-B699-4DAB-AD58-C6075349DC2F>