From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan 20 06:09:43 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 683)
	id F326F16A4F7; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:09:42 -0800
From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org>
To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
Message-ID: <20040120140942.GD94636@FreeBSD.org>
References: <1074590694.85583.20.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
	<400D2939.5090203@fillmore-labs.com> <20040120133020.GB94636@FreeBSD.org>
	<400D344B.6010403@fillmore-labs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <400D344B.6010403@fillmore-labs.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: ports@FreeBSD.org
cc: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org>
cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject: Re: HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:09:43 -0000

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:59:39PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Eivind Eklund wrote:
> >improvement).  And I thought it was supposed to be unique, while it seems 
> >it isn't.  That said, I think the name LATEST_LINK should be changed 
> >(possibly
> >not right now) if LATEST_LINK is to be used this way. 
> >
> >Also, I don't see why LATEST_LINK would always be unique - instead, it 
> >looks to
> >me as if there could be conflicts between different ports on this (while I 
> >thought
> >we defined that there shouldn't be for PORTNAME).
> 
> The problem with the current solution is that renaming OPTIONSFILE is not
> easy, because ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME} is somewhat hardcoded in bsd.port.mk
> now. I can change PORT_DBDIR, but have to accept ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME},
> which is bad. Perhaps we should have
> OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${LATEST_LINK}.options,
> which is easier to change.

I don't think this particular name is usable right now - we "need" something
that falls back to ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}, as the OPTIONS system is now
in production, ports have started to use it[1], and people will have started
storing options in just a few hours.  Unless we can resolve this within
those few hours, we need to have the same ultimate fallback.

[1] Well, only security/snort so far, so I'm going to ask the committer to
    back that out until the present hoopla is sorted out.

> LATEST_LINK should be unique for each package, and I guess if two ports 
> have the same LATEST_LINK they CONFLICT anyway.

Whether they conflict is really immaterial - they shouldn't share options.

> But I don't care if we use LATEST_LINK or something else, as long as it
> is easily changeable in the case of conflicts.

PORTNAME?  ;-)

Eivind.