Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 13:51:02 +0100 From: "Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@corecode.ath.cx> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> Cc: alane@geeksrus.net, petef@databits.net, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for all ports Message-ID: <20020105135102.5f555dee.corecode@corecode.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <20020105000837.A287@straylight.oblivion.bg> References: <1098.192.168.167.6.1009294752.squirrel@192.168.167.1> <20011225104517.B42161@databits.net> <20011225154953.GA82681@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <20020105000837.A287@straylight.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=.26ZUneHSEZ+S3C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:08:37 +0200 Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 10:49:53AM -0500, Alan Eldridge wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 10:45:17AM -0500, Pete Fritchman wrote: > > >++ 26/12/01 02:39 +1100 - Daeron: > > >| Could you include in your guidelines for ports directories a > > >| request that everyone use "CONFIGURE_ARGS+=" instead of a > > >| "CONFIGURE_ARGS=" to allow people to pass additional parameters > > >| without having to hack the Makefile. Perhaps you could consider > > >| running a script to update any existing port-Makefiles seeming > > >| it is such a small change? > > > > > >I agree with you. What do others think? > > > > > >I'd be willing to do the change, as well. > > > > Are there any ports (using MASTERDIR, maybe, to build out of another > > ports dir, or the MASTERDIR port itself) where this could break > > something? I would recommend against using a script to do it. > > > > But a grep and manual changes? I think it's a good idea. > > [ok, so this is an old thread, so I am a lazy slob who does not like > to read a lot of mail during the holidays.. so sue me! ;] > [...] > Well, to start with, this would break dependencies.. > A port's CONFIGURE_ARGS are set in the environment when make(1) > is invoked for a build-, lib- or run-dependency, so a += in that > dependency would inherit the first port's arguments. Not really > a good thing in general, is it now.. that's perfectly true, though there should be a way to customize ports without having to modify makefiles. this could be another "port option" (as discussed in another thread) that gets recorded in /var/db/ and used when building an updated version of a port (eg. via portupgrade). i'd really like to see such an extension to the ports system. ready to volunteer! cheerz corecode -- /"\ http://corecode.ath.cx/ \ / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign / \ Against HTML Mail and News --=.26ZUneHSEZ+S3C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE8Nva5r5S+dk6z85oRAu2JAKCPpoR7FnWED8cf/6daTfZqDrAbigCbB+ek ixxjYKJS5b3uxHU21rF2WkM= =sOBL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.26ZUneHSEZ+S3C-- 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?20020105135102.5f555dee.corecode>