Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:33:01 +0100 From: Mel <fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: kamikaze@bsdforen.de, perryh@pluto.rain.com Subject: Re: setting X11BASE Message-ID: <200802231933.02656.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> In-Reply-To: <47c05ebe.Mgeup%2BojPdtp/pFj%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <47be74b1.pGW9HajDXl3VC5wx%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <47BFD6D1.3020506@bsdforen.de> <47c05ebe.Mgeup%2BojPdtp/pFj%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 23 February 2008 18:58:22 perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> > >>> * What is the value of LOCALBASE? I'm not finding any
> > >>> definition, or other reference, in /etc/make.conf.
> > >>
> > >> Just set it to ${LOCALBASE} verbatim. Not what you think is the
> > >> value of the variable LOCALBASE but the word ${LOCALBASE}.
> > >
> > > Academic interest :)
> > >
> > > I'm finding it especially "interesting" that /etc/make.conf,
> > > which to judge from its location is part of the base, depends
> > > on a setting from something in the /usr/ports tree.
> >
> > Well, actually it doesn't. What gives you this impression?
>
> Paul Schmehl reported where LOCALBASE is set: in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk
>
> Now I'm being told to add this:
>
> X11BASE=${LOCALBASE}
>
> to /etc/make.conf, so that /etc/make.conf needs LOCALBASE to be set
> in order to set X11BASE correctly. Is that not a dependency?
You assume make(1)'s variable assignment is done on encounter base at runtime.
It isn't:
# echo LOCALBASE=/usr/local >/tmp/foo.mk
# echo 'X11BASE=${LOCALBASE}' >>/etc/make.conf
# make -f /tmp/foo.mk -V X11BASE
/usr/local
# echo LOCALBASE=/tmp >/tmp/foo.mk
# make -f /tmp/foo.mk -V X11BASE
/tmp
For your academic interest:
gzcat /usr/share/doc/psd/12.make/paper.ascii.gz|$PAGER
--
Mel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200802231933.02656.fbsd.questions>