From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 9 12:56:49 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13589D9C for ; Thu, 9 May 2013 12:56:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mezz.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com (mail-vc0-f173.google.com [209.85.220.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF0B685 for ; Thu, 9 May 2013 12:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id id13so376984vcb.4 for ; Thu, 09 May 2013 05:56:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=YHgBbDtrf0FfKE9exJRjEG0Tgtm27ZvbJ1pzhcpE68M=; b=tPojrnJWaSGriTHMijQKWCdgNN3RwamLNjInjzXd/OMK0YjoX770A4jkAhyNBEo38T SvYtpIBVgFH1yuSP51Vk4D8T1CinMcMWTVkYT0OgFg8f4jmJFFtEi5osr4HAMoU8hm8P PCICpPPnjupOgLX0yMRq0pozMXtcwFrCWp9Y8PisxSuqVv1e8SJvf2+ZVA6BwrBesNNf 6cyMo/CDIQILs7TgQ1Se09W6ewIXpyqg2W2K71MrCrXFCN4wi20nbbHi9ij151whw244 UxSJ2I/N20cKD6SvRrGZ7m/OHY+j2t8hGKukXXNloLGHlztMfHboMicbSLPCh01Jr1J1 UbFQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.173.36 with SMTP id bh4mr7822621vec.9.1368104202652; Thu, 09 May 2013 05:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.205.140 with HTTP; Thu, 9 May 2013 05:56:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9D8B743E1D37426B81B71BD531ABE2E6@multiplay.co.uk> References: <9D8B743E1D37426B81B71BD531ABE2E6@multiplay.co.uk> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 07:56:42 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: New Port Options infrastructure bug From: Jeremy Messenger To: Steven Hartland Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: FreeBSD Ports Mailing List X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 12:56:49 -0000 On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Steven Hartland wrote: > I've just been looking at devel/rubygem-multi_json and was > perplexed by how it wasn't saving my options. > > It seems that how the new port options infrastructure determines > where to load and store its configured options from is quite > flaky and breaks with anything that amends PKGNAMEPREFIX within > a sub Makefile such as python, ruby etc. > > Having searched long for the issue it seems lots of ports > are having to work-around this problem as indicated by > comments such as:- > > # bypass infrastructure bug (taken from www/py-django) > OPTIONSFILE= ${PORT_DBDIR}/py-${PORTNAME}/options > > Is this a know issue which has someone is working on it or are > port creators being left deal with this on a case by case > basis? See here: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2013-April/083035.html I don't really have much of time to create patch and test until somewhere in June. > Obviously its extremely frustrating from a user perspective > to find out that the options chosen aren't actually being > applied as they are failing to save / load :( > > Regards > Steve -- mezz.freebsd@gmail.com - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org