Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:46:45 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: Simon 'corecode' Schubert <corecode@corecode.ath.cx> Cc: alane@geeksrus.net, petef@databits.net, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for all ports Message-ID: <20020105194644.A6672@straylight.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <20020105135102.5f555dee.corecode@corecode.ath.cx>; from corecode@corecode.ath.cx on Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 01:51:02PM %2B0100 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> <20020105135102.5f555dee.corecode@corecode.ath.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 01:51:02PM +0100, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote: > 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! There is a way - many ports' Makefiles honor WITH_* and WITHOUT_* variables to toggle various knobs. And as for the persistent options - there is the sysutils/penv port, which allows you to set options for a specific directory and then use them every time you build a port from that directory. One of these days I will really get 'round to writing up some more penv(1) documentation.. G'luck, Peter -- This sentence claims to be an Epimenides paradox, but it is lying. 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?20020105194644.A6672>