From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 12 02:19:59 2003 Return-Path: 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 63A5E16A4B3 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:19:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outpost.globcon.net (outpost.globcon.net [62.141.88.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 615C943FE0 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:19:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sergei@kolobov.com) Received: (qmail 60309 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2003 09:19:52 -0000 Received: from dom.kolobov.com (HELO kolobov.com) (213.247.180.114) by outpost.globcon.net (62.141.88.161) with SMTP; 12 Oct 2003 09:19:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 963 invoked by uid 911); 12 Oct 2003 09:19:53 -0000 Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:19:53 +0400 From: Sergei Kolobov To: ports@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20031012091953.GA872@chetwood.ru> Mail-Followup-To: ports@FreeBSD.org References: <22159707417.20031010130423@serebryakov.spb.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Subject: Re: Ports conflicts: `lib/libiberty.a' X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:19:59 -0000 On 2003-10-11 at 15:53 -0700, Ade Lovett wrote: > No. Please no. Oh lordy, no. The maze of options, variables, hacks, > and other bits and pieces needs to be reduced, not increased. It's a > staggeringly complex ball of wax already. Agreed. Wasn't it you, Ade, who suggested going to something like: USE_FEATURES= autoconf automake openldap etc. Or at least this is what I remembered. ;) I think this is the approach we should take and I am willing to help with that unless you have the patches ready. ;) > A centralized place to refer to these knobs (a purely documentatary > bsd.knobs.mk, perhaps) detailing what they are, who uses them, and what > they do would go a long way to help, but some of the process would have > to be (non-trivially) automated in order to keep it up to date (no > small task in of itself). I think this is overly complex solution for a not-very-complex problem. There were several alternative solutions proposed on this very list - somthing like a pkg-options file which list all options local to the port, together with corresponding bsd.port.mk magic to present a user with a list of options to choose from, while still allowing to pre-define them via /etc/make.conf (or some other mechanism) and providing defaults for BATCH=yes builds. > I'm really starting to wonder whether we've reached the limits of what > can reasonably be accomplished with make(1) as we approach ports10k... Good question. Do you have any alternatives in mind? I understand that Darwin was (or is) going to use TCL. At least, I got that impression from few last commits to now-dead OpenPackages CVS. Sergei