Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      12 Oct 2003 12:11:19 -0000
From:      tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck)
To:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Ports conflicts: `lib/libiberty.a'
Message-ID:  <20031012121119.653.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org>
In-Reply-To: <C9367B46-FC3D-11D7-8071-000A956B6386@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Ade Lovett <ade@freebsd.org>:

> No.  Please no.  Oh lordy, no.  The maze of options, variables, hacks, 
> and other bits and pieces needs to be reduced, not increased.  It's a 
> staggeringly complex ball of wax already.
> 
> An excellent task for someone who wants to learn A LOT about the ports 
> tree as a single entity would be to run through the entire tree, 
> documenting all these magical flags, and, as a first shot, start 
> cleaning them up.
>
> To take a random case in point, with no finger pointing, things like 
> the use of OpenLDAP has a metric shitload of different, but the same, 
> ways to do things, USE_LDAP, WITH_LDAP, USE_OPENLDAP, WITH_OPENLDAP, 
> WITH_OPENLDAP_VER, LDAP_PORT, etc.. etc..

It would like to see a namespace policy wrt make variables in ports. I
propose that portmgr@ is the authority to define a set of WITH_FOO
variables for "global" use and that every port should be tough to use
these and additionally WITH_PORTNAME_BAR for its own "local" tunables.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031012121119.653.qmail>