From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Jun 6 01:31:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA07268 for ports-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 01:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA07102 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 01:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id LAA24455; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 11:23:51 +0300 (EEST) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 11:23:51 +0300 (EEST) From: Narvi To: Satoshi Asami cc: james@nexis.net, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, rdm@cfcl.com Subject: Re: first cut of multiple architecture support In-Reply-To: <199706060436.VAA16559@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Satoshi Asami wrote: > * Personally, I think that the main targets should be smart > * enough to use defined variables rather than create an extra 10 > * or 12 targets per OS. > > Well, one problem is that OPSYS and ARCH are not defined until you > read bsd.port.mk. So you can't really do much in the port Makefile > (unless you put the targets after the ".include " line, > which will open a whole new can of worms). > Well, why not have ARCH & OPSYS defined in /etc/make.conf? Yes, I know, it is not the first time I suggest adding something to there... But at least theoretically they could be also used when FreeBSD moves to a non-intel architecture. One could in that way (at least theoretically) cross-build ports/packages for another architecure. Sander > Now that I thought more, I think this should be handled in the new > "Makefile.*" include files. Please forget I ever mentioned this. ;) > > Satoshi >