Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 06 Jan 2002 18:53:12 -0500
From:      "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>
To:        Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>
Cc:        Thomas Hurst <tom.hurst@clara.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: make(1) enhancement - an 'environment processor' option 
Message-ID:  <200201062353.g06NrC709321@whizzo.transsys.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 06 Jan 2002 23:38:51 %2B0200." <20020106233851.L314@straylight.oblivion.bg> 
References:  <20011225202925.F304@straylight.oblivion.bg> <20020106222002.E314@straylight.oblivion.bg> <20020106222342.GA76079@voi.aagh.net> <20020106233110.K314@straylight.oblivion.bg> <20020106233851.L314@straylight.oblivion.bg> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 11:31:10PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 10:23:42PM +0000, Thomas Hurst wrote:
> > > * Peter Pentchev (roam@ringlet.net) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > No feedback on this proposed change to make(1)? :)
> > > 
> > > Personally I think this is something that should be handled by ports
> > > rather than make; can it's functionality not be added to bsd.port.mk or
> > > so?
> > 
> > As I wrote in my reply to Mark Valentine's mail, I personally do not
> > think it can be easily added to bsd.port.mk without some *really* ugly
> > and error-prone code and *lots* of invocations of other programs.
> > 
> > Everybody, feel free to prove me wrong :)
> 
> Oh, and of course, the make(1) environment could well be tweaked outside
> of the ports tree, too; for my personal use, this avoids some hassling
> with different DOC_LANG, DOCDIR, WEB_LANG and WEBDIR settings for
> my own playpen.  Yes, I know I can set a variable by myself, I know
> I can specify it on the make(1) command line; why should I need to? :)
> Now I can set or unset environment variables for various parts of
> the source tree without mucking with Makefiles; in short, I personally
> like it.

The portupgrade tool (and it's associated utilities) in the ports
tree already has a mechanism to store away per-port configuration
information that's used to build a particular port/package.

I don't think this ought to be stuck into make, when it could probably
be done as a wrapper instead.

louie


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200201062353.g06NrC709321>