From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 22 14:17:35 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: x11@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB581065673 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 14:17:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from relay00.pair.com (relay00.pair.com [209.68.5.9]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C2168FC12 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 14:17:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 90799 invoked from network); 22 May 2011 13:50:52 -0000 Received: from 91.186.144.116 (HELO ?192.168.0.130?) (91.186.144.116) by relay00.pair.com with SMTP; 22 May 2011 13:50:52 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 91.186.144.116 Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 15:50:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Robert Noland , x11@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <4BFA8A71.5000304@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <4BFA8A71.5000304@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Subject: Re: Simplify relative path in libGLU/Makefile X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 14:17:35 -0000 On Mon, 24 May 2010, Robert Noland wrote: >> Index: libGLU/Makefile >> =================================================================== >> RCS file: /home/pcvs/ports/graphics/libGLU/Makefile,v >> retrieving revision 1.13 >> diff -r1.13 Makefile >> 26c26 >> < .include "${.CURDIR}/../../graphics/libGL/bsd.mesalib.mk" >> --- >> > .include "${.CURDIR}/../libGL/bsd.mesalib.mk" > How exactly does this simplify things? I think the existing is more > technically correct. Apologies for the delay in getting back on this. The usecase here is where someone checks out individual ports as opposed to the entire tree or subtrees and builds them. This works very fine in general, there are but one or two ports where this fails for me. graphics/libGLU is one of them. I am pretty convinced my patch is not less correcty technically, but rather more. It works both with a full ports checkout, and the scenario I describe below. Do you approve? Gerald