Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:54:44 +0200
From:      Radim Kolar <hsn@netmag.cz>
To:        ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: configuring ports via Makefile.local
Message-ID:  <20040730165444.GA36115@sanatana.dharma>
In-Reply-To: <BF9C33C8-DFB4-11D8-BCFE-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
References:  <20040727122823.40c6c3c5@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <BF9C33C8-DFB4-11D8-BCFE-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Supporting Makefile.local is a good idea. It allows per-port configuration
without using external tools like portupgrade and without making some obscure
constructs in make.conf. It is easy to understand and port subsystem already
handles it for last 5 years and there is a policy about not committing makefile.local into ports tree. There is no reason for throwing makefile.local away.

Porter handbook section about port options must be changed in any case.
OPTIONS= are also not documented there. In any case (makefile.local and
options)port.pre.mk must be included before making tests against customized
options set by user.  I am willing to write this porter handbook update.

> To make it `supported' it has the be documented somewhere, which is something
> I won't like to see.
Do you want to see OPTIONS= as only method supported? Converting all ports into
OPTIONS= is also solution of this problem. I do not know about this conversion time line. Makefile.local and OPTIONS can both co-exist.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040730165444.GA36115>