From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 13 17:11:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F2F16A4CE; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:11:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A1743FF2; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:11:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAE1BUfY038973; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:11:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hAE1BSsq038972; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:11:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:11:28 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: Oliver Eikemeier Message-ID: <20031114011128.GA38924@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <3FB39FB5.5000209@fillmore-labs.com> <20031113164741.GA33494@dragon.nuxi.com> <3FB40710.8010409@fillmore-labs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FB40710.8010409@fillmore-labs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 cc: ports@FreeBSD.org cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/59254: ports that write something after bsd.port.mk X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:11:58 -0000 On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:34:56PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > You are right with CONFIGURE_TARGET, 359 ports use a workaround, thanks > again for bringing this up. I'm using this workaround myself in the > OpenLDAP ports, and PR 52917 seems to deal with it. At least it should > be easy to remove the workaround from those ports, they all use the > same assignment, so it's just a simple search-and-replace. Maybe we need a knob (USE_NEW_CONFIGURE_TUPLE) or something so that there is complete consistency in the GNU tuple string.