Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:47:00 -0700 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: Joseph Koshy <jkoshy@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/38090: devel/m4 port PREFIX vs LOCALBASE Message-ID: <744C0E6D-F94A-11D7-9782-000A956B6386@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200310080340.h983eWle046442@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 20:40 US/Pacific, Joseph Koshy wrote:
> -CONFIGURE_ENV+= M4=${LOCALBASE}/bin/gm4
> +CONFIGURE_ENV+= M4=$(which gm4)
Hrm. Not too keen on this idea, since bad things happen if 'which gm4'
doesn't return a path, though this is also true of the hardcoded
solution.
Something along the lines
GM4?= ${LOCALBASE}/bin/gm4
CONFIGURE_ENV+= M4=${GM4}
[...]
post-extract:
.if !exists(${GM4})
@${ECHO_CMD} "Unable to locate GNU M4"
@${FALSE}
.endif
Would allow for maximum flexibility for those who put gm4 in odd places.
However, I'm still not really convinced, given the number of other
ports that assume that things are installed in ${LOCALBASE} or
${X11BASE}. In my opinion, if a user is prepared to make those
changes, then there could well be breakage elsewhere, particularly in
the case where things are installed outside of a ${LOCALBASE} or
${X11BASE} scenario.
I guess it could be wrapped into a USE_GM4 variable, once the massive
amount of GNU tool hacking in bsd.port.mk is shifted out to
bsd.gnutools.mk.
Thoughts?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?744C0E6D-F94A-11D7-9782-000A956B6386>