Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 09:44:26 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net>, Kirill Ponomarew <krion@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/astro/celestia Makefile ports/astro/fooseti Makefile ports/astro/jday Makefile ports/databases/db3 Makefile ports/devel/fam Makefile ports/devel/gengetopt Makefile Message-ID: <20040418164426.GA62817@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20040418123539.GB348@isis.wad.cz> References: <200404171920.i3HJKVoD088405@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040417220810.M41949@blues.jpj.net> <20040418123539.GB348@isis.wad.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:35:39PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # trevor@jpj.net / 2004-04-17 22:11:51 -0400:
> > Maybe the default CONFIGURE_TARGET in bsd.port.mk ought to be changed, or
> > a second default (--build=...) made available?
>
> Last time I looked at this it seemed there was no easy way to
> determine whether the configure script wanted the target in the
> --build= switch or as an argument.
>
> But perhaps CONFIGURE_TARGET:= --build=${CONFIGURE_TARGET} in the
> individual ports would be a welcome change?
It's just a harmless warning. Why not just tolerate it?
It is fragile if someone has set a local CONFIGURE_TARGET in
/etc/make.conf.
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040418164426.GA62817>