Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:37:56 +0000 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: "Andrew W. Nosenko" <andrew.w.nosenko@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Building ports with gcc46 Message-ID: <CAGFTUwMphOEFC0M0YfUxs3iUAWLbpMcPKB5VOm1E-jFFr-uQug@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CALa-7vxfRwhqRcQPATtumfv6YPA5HZ==VqGRKcZw-V2pzJXYPA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAGFTUwO_mXzUcsWTvn01=uxGg1CgXratdQKDbUYxR-06bha5zg@mail.gmail.com> <CALa-7vxfRwhqRcQPATtumfv6YPA5HZ==VqGRKcZw-V2pzJXYPA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/15/11, Andrew W. Nosenko <andrew.w.nosenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:05, b. f. <bf1783@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> If you are interested in applying them to a single port, use a test on
>> .CURDIR,
>> or, better yet, add the statement to any of the optional Makefiles that
>> are
>> automatically included by bsd.port.mk and were intended for that purpose
>> --
>> ${MASTERDIR}/Makefile.local, for example.
>
> Unfortunatelly, the Makefile.local included too late for have any
> positive/intended effect (e.g. define port-specific WITH/WITHOUT knob,
> modify CONFIGURE_ARGS,...) in many cases/ports. Therefore, advise to
> use Makefile.local is unreliable. And we left in situation, where
> make.conf is the only one reasonable working solution :-(
Certainly Makefile.local is not included as early as make.conf, and so
may not be used for every purpose for which make.conf may be used.
But with regard to the topic of this thread, Makefile.local is
included before options-handling, and the test for inclusion of
bsd.gcc.mk. Why did you think otherwise? Using Makefile.local is
generally safer because of its narrower scope, and because it cannot
be included multiple times if make(1) is invoked recursively, unlike
make.conf.
b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGFTUwMphOEFC0M0YfUxs3iUAWLbpMcPKB5VOm1E-jFFr-uQug>