Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 02:32:37 -0700 From: Jeremy Lea <reg@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: Satoshi Asami <asami@FreeBSD.org> Subject: WITH/WITHOUT options cleanup Message-ID: <20000410023237.F32928@shale.csir.co.za>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi all, I've placed a patch at http://www.freebsd.org/~reg/with.patch, which cleans up the handling of options in ports. Basically these are any things the user can define while building ports. We had a mixture of NO_, WANT_, WITH_, WITHOUT_, DONT_USE_ and USE_, and these were being tested against YES, yes, NO or no. This was confusing. This patch makes two kinds of variables: WITH_FOO - Turns on support for FOO. WITHOUT_FOO - Turns off support for FOO. These are boolean, and should only be tested with defined(). If a port autodetect's support then it should use something like: .if defined(WITH_X11) || (exists(${X11BASE}/lib/libX11.a) \ && !defined(WITHOUT_X11)) ... .endif (bsd.port.pre.mk needs to be included before this to get X11BASE). The patch also removes nearly all occurances of WITH_ variables in ports, since I want to be able to scan for the options above automatically. I will write something for the handbook reserving WITH_ and WITHOUT_ as variable names. USE_ should also be reserved for knobs in bsd.port.mk. The ports I've not touched are the emacs/mule/canna cancer^H^H^H set of ports, which have a set of WITH_ options, which should be CONFIGURE_ARGS+= options. I'm scared of breaking these... Also, I've not tried to alter any setttings with have multiple values (like ispell's languages (although these should be WITH_), or glx's chipset). Comments please. -Jeremy -- FreeBSD - Because the best things in life are free... http://www.freebsd.org/ 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?20000410023237.F32928>