Date: 01 Sep 1999 17:35:06 -0700
From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami)
To: Shigeyuki Fukushima <shige@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, jseger@FreeBSD.org, hetzels@westbend.net
Subject: Re: ${PORTSDIR}/Mk/bsd.port.emacs.mk (Re: emacs-XX)
Message-ID: <vqcvh9unoat.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: Shigeyuki Fukushima's message of "Thu, 02 Sep 1999 08:56:58 %2B0900"
References: <19990822212722W.shige@shige.org> <02cf01bef0ea$a8aee400$8dfee0d1@westbend.net> <19990829030336Q.shige@shige.org> <19990902085658F.shige@sitc.toshiba.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* shige> a.) ${PORTSDIR}/Mk/bsd.port.emacs.mk
* shige> b.) ${PORTSDIR}/editors/emacs.inc
* If there is no objection, I adopt plan a.), and want to import NEW
* bsd.port.emacs.mk to ${PORTSDIR}/Mk, or to ask for asami-san to do so.
Why do people want it to be in ${PORTSDIR}/Mk? If it's because they
think they can build a port outside of the ports tree by using
.include "${PORTSDIR}/Mk/bsd.port.emacs.mk"
instead of
.include "${.CURDIR}/../../editors/emacs.inc"
let me note that you need to somehow get the definition of ${PORTDIR}
first, and it will thus not work unless you include it after
bsd.port.mk or at least bsd.port.pre.mk.
Including it after bsd.port.mk will of course open a whole new can of
worms (just think what will happen if you use one of the directory
names in PLIST_SUB). That means it has to be with bsd.port.pre.mk.
Do people really want to do that?
Satoshi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?vqcvh9unoat.fsf>