Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:43:27 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Carl <k0802647@telus.net> Cc: freebsd@edvax.de, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: building a port with very long list of build options Message-ID: <BANLkTi=KB2gkiJa3gcMrrLcB9erYh0v9HQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB1297E.6090205@telus.net> References: <4DB0F34B.9030008@telus.net> <BANLkTinn53mqc=2rkWqMAqZJvdK-vydP7A@mail.gmail.com> <4DB1297E.6090205@telus.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 22 April 2011 08:08, Carl <k0802647@telus.net> wrote: > On 2011-04-21 8:52 PM, Polytropon wrote: >> >> This has been possible and common in the past. For example, >> the many options for the mplayer and mencoder ports could >> be specified in a file, so changing of a port's file was >> not needed. I'm not fully sure this option is still present, >> but at least on v7 it worked. >> >> Create a file Makefile.local in the port's directory and >> specify all your options as desired. This file will be >> sourced when you issue a "make" command and will override >> settings of the regular Makefile (e. g. if you want >> different CFLAGS for _this_ port). The file is to be in >> the known syntax, NAME=value. > > Does that solution allow for locating Makefile.local outside the ports tree > so as not to contaminate builds for other targets using the same ports tree? > > On 2011-04-21 9:11 PM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: >> >> If you read the make manual page , you will see the following option : >> >> ... >> >> *-f* *makefile* >> Specify a makefile to read instead of the default one. >> >> ... >> >> which is used as >> >> make -f your_own_make_file_name >> >> This form will override the Makefile present in the current directory >> and will use the specified make file with name your_own_make_file_name . > > Yes, I did see that, but I interpreted that to mean my make file *replaces* > the original, in which case I would need to populate my make file not only > with the list of build options I want but also a copy of everything in the > original make file. If I'm correct, that doesn't seem to me to be a good > idea from a maintenance perspective. I was hoping for something like the -f > option that somehow inserted rather than replaced. > Or, at the bottom of your Makefile defining variables (including BATCH= yes to skip the OPTIONS dialog), stick the line: .include "Makefile" and use make -f _my_Makefile Chrishelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTi=KB2gkiJa3gcMrrLcB9erYh0v9HQ>