Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:19:40 -0500 From: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Ports Options Paper Message-ID: <20000909011940.F92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009082308010.15977-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>; from kris@FreeBSD.org on Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 11:10:30PM -0700 References: <20000909010404.D92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009082308010.15977-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 11:10:30PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: # # Could there be added an extra field to the INDEX which contains a list of # options the package should be built with, like # # |...other index stuff...|WITH_FOO,WITH_BAR,WITH_FOO+BAR # # the port makefile would then take care of giving the package a different # name for each of the 3 cases, a la Will or whatever. Possibly, but with only a package name like libick and WITH_FOO how does bsd.*.mk know what the name of the package is that has WITH_FOO? Among others it could be called libick-foo, libick_foo, libick+foo, ... Sure we could implement a set of guidelines that specified how the package names should work, but we all know how well that works. On the other hand if we could get the describe target to generate more than one entry, then we'd have a solution that wouldn't require changing the package building scripts and countless other scripts/programs that are currently laying about. -steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000909011940.F92984>