Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:11:01 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Dirk Meyer <dirk.meyer@dinoex.sub.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes Message-ID: <400E7A65.2030007@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <Tb26e/bF/%2B@dmeyer.dinoex.sub.org> References: <20040120133020.GB94636@FreeBSD.org> <1074590694.85583.20.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <400D2939.5090203@fillmore-labs.com> <20040120133020.GB94636@FreeBSD.org> <400D344B.6010403@fillmore-labs.com> <Tb26e/bF/%2B@dmeyer.dinoex.sub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dirk Meyer wrote:
> Oliver Eikemeier schrieb:,
>
>
>>The problem with the current solution is that renaming OPTIONSFILE is not
>>easy, because ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME} is somewhat hardcoded in bsd.port.mk
>>now. I can change PORT_DBDIR, but have to accept ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME},
>>which is bad. Perhaps we should have
>>OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${LATEST_LINK}.options,
>>which is easier to change.
>
>
> Why no using it really foolproof:
> OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${PKGCATEGORY}-${PORTNAME}.options
- won't survive moved ports (e.g. net/bind9 => dns/bind9)
- is not unique (e.g. www-apache.options)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?400E7A65.2030007>