Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:55:25 -0600 From: John Hein <jhein@symmetricom.com> To: Mel Flynn <rflynn@acsalaska.net> Cc: miwi@freebsd.org, mexas@bristol.ac.uk, bug-followup@freebsd.org, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru>, freebsd-python@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/159215: Mk/bsd.python.mk: PYTHON_VERSION is ignored Message-ID: <20357.57773.876931.940056@gromit.timing.com> In-Reply-To: <4F85DFED.5050505@acsalaska.net> References: <201204111317.q3BDHksK038176@freefall.freebsd.org> <4F858621.603@yandex.ru> <20357.55785.187568.687487@gromit.timing.com> <4F85DFED.5050505@acsalaska.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mel Flynn wrote at 21:47 +0200 on Apr 11, 2012: > On 4/11/2012 21:22, John Hein wrote: > > > But (#1) neither work because bsd.port.pre.mk defines PYTHON_PORTSDIR > > before the new python version can be set by the ARCH == amd64 test. > > > > But (#2) you can't put the ARCH .if test before bsd.port.pre.mk since > > ARCH is not defined at that point. > > Just a thought: > You can simplify the hack by including bsd.port.options.mk instead of > the first bsd.port.pre.mk. ARCH will be defined while bsd.python.mk > isn't included yet. Indeed. Although it's a bit counterintuitive to include bsd.port.options.mk when there are no OPTIONS. However, it's perhaps safer than including pre.mk twice and hoping no one changes anything above the first that leaves USE_PYTHON defined. Whichever of those hacks is used, there should be a comment about what's going on and why.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20357.57773.876931.940056>