From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 10 10:18:53 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 8E34EEA
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:18:53 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd@grem.de)
Received: from mail.grem.de (outcast.grem.de [213.239.217.27])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D1AE28FC19
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:18:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 37973 invoked by uid 89); 10 Oct 2012 10:18:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO bsd64.grem.de) (mg@grem.de@80.137.121.43)
 by mail.grem.de with ESMTPA; 10 Oct 2012 10:18:51 -0000
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:18:50 +0200
From: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de>
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: HAVE_GNOME vs. bsd.ports.options.mk
Message-ID: <20121010121850.039fb6d2@bsd64.grem.de>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:18:53 -0000

Hi

I noticed that HAVE_GNOME doesn't work properly with
bsd.ports.options.mk yet, so

.include <bsd.port.options.mk>
.if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mgnomelibs}!=""
# ...
.endif
.include <bsd.port.mk>

won't work, while this

.include <bsd.port.pre.mk>
.if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mgnomelibs}!=""
# ...
.endif
.include <bsd.port.post.mk>

does.

AFAIK bsd.port.pre.mk/bsd.port.post.mk should be replaced by
bsd.port.options.mk/bsd.port.mk in the long term, so having this work
or documenting a workaround would help port maintainers who are
in the process of updating the port structure.

Michael

-- 
Michael Gmelin