From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 29 21:53:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 C4DB116A420 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:53:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@ricin.com) Received: from smtpq3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl (smtpq3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl [213.51.146.202]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F81943D5F for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:53:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danny@ricin.com) Received: from [213.51.146.189] (port=34154 helo=smtp2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl) by smtpq3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1FOibQ-00023Y-8B; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:53:20 +0200 Received: from cp464173-a.dbsch1.nb.home.nl ([84.27.215.228]:57591 helo=desktop.homenet) by smtp2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1FOibP-00032B-5J; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:53:19 +0200 From: Danny Pansters To: fcash@ocis.net Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:53:15 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <200603292344.52149.danny@ricin.com> <48051.192.168.0.10.1143668999.squirrel@webmail.sd73.bc.ca> In-Reply-To: <48051.192.168.0.10.1143668999.squirrel@webmail.sd73.bc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603292353.15786.danny@ricin.com> X-AtHome-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@home.nl for more information X-AtHome-MailScanner: Found to be clean Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mutually exclusive OPTIONS? 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: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:53:25 -0000 On Wednesday 29 March 2006 23:49, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Wed, March 29, 2006 1:44 pm, Danny Pansters wrote: > > I'm making a port that has several mutually exclusive compile-time > > options. I want to present them as OPTIONS as should, but is there a > > way within the ports framework to ensure that only one (of the 5 > > possibilities) is selected, or when one of them is the default but > > then with 4 mutually exclusive OPTIONS if the user needs one of teh > > non-default options? > > Hopefully someone else will know a better way, but the way I've used > and seen in other ports is: > > .if defined(WITH_OPTION1) && defined(WITH_OPTION2) > IGNORE= error! You can't select these two options together. > .endif > > And so on for all the combinations that should not be selected. :) Ugh. Then I rather use the first selected non-default and ignore the others... Thanks, Dan