From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jun 20 14:59:52 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3CF16A4CE
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:59:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-50-15.dynamic.qsc.de
	[212.202.50.15])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DB143D39
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:59:51 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com)
Received: from [172.16.0.13] (helo=localhost)
	by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
	(Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD))
	id 1Bc3nQ-0002se-FM; Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:59:51 +0200
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:59:51 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482)
To: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au>
From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <1087741273.1006.86.camel@dirk>
Message-Id: <7B355F0F-C2CA-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9
cc: ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: okay to .include "${PORTSDIR}/Mk/bsd.java.mk"?
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: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:59:52 -0000

Sam Lawrance wrote:

> Just looked at the thread started by Volker Stolz along similar lines
> with USE_QT_VER and ports/64233.
>
> It seems that there are two conflicting needs, neither of which are
> currently met:
>
> * ports that want to set the inputs to bsd.port.pre.mk based on
> OPTIONS-generated WITH_* variables (my problem)
> * ports that want to set the OPTIONS available based on the outputs of
> bsd.port.pre.mk (as outlined in the PR)
>
> ie
> * OPTIONS -> (process OPTIONS) -> WITH_* -> bsd.port.pre.mk
> * bsd.port.pre.mk -> (generate OPTIONS) -> (process OPTIONS) -> WITH_*
>
> Perhaps options processing should be able to be included where it is
> needed - "bsd.port.options.mk"?
>
> In either case both scenarios at once for a single port is not currently
> possible unless bsd.port.pre.mk gets fragmented into pre- and
> post-OPTIONS bits (or including bsd.port.pre.mk twice is allowed :).

I have a different approach in PR 64233: pre-include options when
available. A bsd.port.options.mk would just be a hack working around
the many deficiencies of OPTIONS. IMHO OPTIONS should be deprecated
and replaced by something better. I would like to see a graphical
configuration tool, but OPTIONS is just badly designed and hard to
support, so it causes more problems than it solves.

-Oliver