From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 10 15:40:41 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 CF9BB2F3
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:40:41 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com
 [209.85.214.54])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5818FC0C
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:40:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-bk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id jf20so398613bkc.13
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :cc:content-type;
 bh=rFvsqgzy3pZblmgKO36+YkZuEBT/XfLilwEyAvp4ZW0=;
 b=ItAutBE34uGGvCXdEnWsqTg+v7eLK6Cn7d979S/7GZDr/ra8M8QyZsrFIVktaujqim
 WgrJQFqggARH3iXfrJuzqFWmPSRmY0aUznyEwWLsAHvUuPlHx9QpBYB1xBd/dVIhjEYS
 cyknA2GspE5kcDQTWmGk2AZFy7ag5MJFM/ex8vxIbcHxZAeI6oihfOWbBhE/vxcX4dqq
 1QLr6fG3M8n/xtp95lMMI4ULsr0lfJ9osmEqhA/mzv2dNyLk4o2DDt7jkXXDghF7VWdJ
 JnUoMCE4ytiNyA0IQC1PpTi+6ykdPiWzVXuQmGdiGJDnoymGQvgF4y+kTQej28FCBQLD
 A5vA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.4.200 with SMTP id 8mr8579003bks.81.1349883639999; Wed, 10
 Oct 2012 08:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.50.197 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.50.197 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20121010121850.039fb6d2@bsd64.grem.de>
References: <20121010121850.039fb6d2@bsd64.grem.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:40:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CADLo83-K+i0rU9ssWuB8K9UTXRBa478UBBP1zrzChfAmtT5J+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HAVE_GNOME vs. bsd.ports.options.mk
From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
To: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14
Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
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 15:40:42 -0000

On 10 Oct 2012 11:19, "Michael Gmelin" <freebsd@grem.de> wrote:
>
> 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.

No. They are two separate methods with two different reasons for using them.

You have discovered a case of pre.mk being the correct one to use, which is
unusual :)

Chris