Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:52:05 +0200
From:      Mel Flynn <rflynn@acsalaska.net>
To:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: optionsng ignores /var/db/ports/<portname>/options
Message-ID:  <4FCBEA95.6050807@acsalaska.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FCBE328.3030702@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <20120603192023.GA8350@slackbox.erewhon.net>	<20120603200101.GB98939@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120603215406.GC98939@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FCBE328.3030702@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4-6-2012 0:20, Michael Scheidell wrote:

> optionsng should have been 100% upward compatible.  you should not be
> forced to an an emergency update of a port you maintain just because the
> ports tree broke things.

This has always been broken. It's just exposed by Roland cause he's
/adding/ an option and never had any. graphics/py-yaml has the work
around and it's been there since version 1.14:
<http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/devel/py-yaml/Makefile?annotate=1.20>;

(line 25)

The real issue is that something created for slave ports (thus set
before any of the option framework comes in play) is "abused" by Mk/
frameworks that only come in sight /after/ options.mk. This causes two
versions of UNIQUENAME in the execution stream to exist. One before the
framework is included and one after.
-- 
Mel



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FCBEA95.6050807>