Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 23:43:42 -0700 From: Jason Helfman <jgh@FreeBSD.org> To: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> Cc: FreeBSD Ports List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bsd.port.pre.mk vs bsd.port.options.mk Message-ID: <CAMuy=%2BiqFsQst-tEYJmNmyih3eXfEGLa2XR3=u2ada=pKDMq4g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <l0g6jl$jf0$1@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> References: <l0g6jl$jf0$1@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de>wrote:
> I have port that does something like
>
> .include <bsd.port.pre.mk>
>
> .if ${ARCH} == ...
> ...
> .endif
>
> .include <bsd.port.post.mk>
>
> A while back somebody submitted a PR asking me to replace bsd.port.pre.mk
> with bsd.port.options.mk, because it also makes ARCH available and
> is far less expensive.
>
> Now, a priori it is not clear to me that including options.mk is
> actually cheaper than pre.mk. And it seems odd to include options.mk
> but then not use any part of the options framework. The Porter's
> Handbook explicitly mentions ARCH as one of the variables provided
> by pre.mk.
>
> What's the preferred way to handle this?
>
> --
> Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
>
>
It is preferred to evaluate ARCH with bsd.port.options.mk.
-jgh
--
Jason Helfman | FreeBSD Committer
jgh@FreeBSD.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~jgh | The Power to Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAMuy=%2BiqFsQst-tEYJmNmyih3eXfEGLa2XR3=u2ada=pKDMq4g>