From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 5 21:15:40 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7982A1065672; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 21:15:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rflynn@acsalaska.net) Received: from mailhub.rachie.is-a-geek.net (rachie.is-a-geek.net [66.230.99.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39CAE8FC0C; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 21:15:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (squeeze.lan.rachie.is-a-geek.net [192.168.2.30]) by mailhub.rachie.is-a-geek.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B117E878; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 13:15:36 -0800 (AKDT) Message-ID: <4F7E0B41.4030201@acsalaska.net> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 23:14:41 +0200 From: Mel Flynn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Philip M. Gollucci" References: <4F732C89.3040804@FreeBSD.org> <4F733432.4020902@FreeBSD.org> <63ca1b333a310ecc2b1d1f0e1e1542a1.squirrel@mail.experts-exchange.com> <4F7338C3.8020003@p6m7g8.com> <4F733C3A.7020004@missouri.edu> <4F734524.2000400@p6m7g8.com> <4F735340.1020103@FreeBSD.org> <4F7379FD.9040802@p6m7g8.com> <20120329200243.GA76833@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20120330131625.GA30070@atarininja.org> <4F75F3ED.9000508@p6m7g8.com> <4F75FA31.2030806@p6m7g8.com> <4F760FB3.6020708@FreeBSD.org> <4F761921.7030505@p6m7g8.com> <4F7DFAC9.1080806@FreeBSD.org> <4F7DFEBC.1090305@p6m7g8.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7DFEBC.1090305@p6m7g8.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Michael Scheidell , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FAQ on PORTREVISION bump? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:15:40 -0000 On 4/5/2012 22:21, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > On 04/05/12 20:04, Michael Scheidell wrote: >> on this one, I did. And was told by crees that I didn't need to wrap >> PORTDOCS= around an ifdef. >> >> So, 2 programmers, 2 opinions. Thank God I didn't ask in ports@. > Of the 2 of them one is right. At least as it is currently documented. > > [snip bpm docs] > in the case of NOPORTDOCS, no documentation files should be installed, > so this variable should not be set. So you _must_ ifdef it. Shouldn't confuse two cases: 1) A case where upstream software takes care of installing the documentation. In this case you can set PORTDOCS without any need to wrap it, because bpm already takes care of this: .if !target(add-plist-docs) add-plist-docs: .if defined(PORTDOCS) && !defined(NOPORTDOCS) # do the magic .else @${DO_NADA} .endif In this case you need to pass "--disable-docs" or something to that effect to it's CONFIGURE_ARGS or whatever the upstream build system requires for it. Simply wrapping NOPORTDOCS around PORTDOCS will not do this for you. It's also possible you need to do reverse: if NOPORTDOCS is not defined, pass --enable-docs. 2) The case where you "abuse" PORTDOCS to install the documentation yourself in (pre|post|do)-install. In this case you shall not install the documentation if NOPORTDOCS is set and thus either you wrap PORTDOCS in NOPORTDOCS so that it's an empty variable and your loop in the install target doesn't run, or you wrap the PORTDOCS related part in the install target with NOPORTDOCS. Wrapping the install target is IMHO the preferred option, since you will also have to disable ${MKDIR} ${DOCSDIR} if you use that. -- Mel