Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:45:58 -0500 From: Greg Larkin <glarkin@FreeBSD.org> To: bf1783@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com>, "Andrew W. Nosenko" <andrew.w.nosenko@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Building ports with gcc46 Message-ID: <4EEA5C86.7070107@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAGFTUwMphOEFC0M0YfUxs3iUAWLbpMcPKB5VOm1E-jFFr-uQug@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAGFTUwO_mXzUcsWTvn01=uxGg1CgXratdQKDbUYxR-06bha5zg@mail.gmail.com> <CALa-7vxfRwhqRcQPATtumfv6YPA5HZ==VqGRKcZw-V2pzJXYPA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGFTUwMphOEFC0M0YfUxs3iUAWLbpMcPKB5VOm1E-jFFr-uQug@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/15/11 9:37 AM, b. f. wrote:
> On 12/15/11, Andrew W. Nosenko <andrew.w.nosenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:05, b. f. <bf1783@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> If you are interested in applying them to a single port, use a test on
>>> .CURDIR,
>>> or, better yet, add the statement to any of the optional Makefiles that
>>> are
>>> automatically included by bsd.port.mk and were intended for that purpose
>>> --
>>> ${MASTERDIR}/Makefile.local, for example.
>>
>> Unfortunatelly, the Makefile.local included too late for have any
>> positive/intended effect (e.g. define port-specific WITH/WITHOUT knob,
>> modify CONFIGURE_ARGS,...) in many cases/ports. Therefore, advise to
>> use Makefile.local is unreliable. And we left in situation, where
>> make.conf is the only one reasonable working solution :-(
>
> Certainly Makefile.local is not included as early as make.conf, and so
> may not be used for every purpose for which make.conf may be used.
> But with regard to the topic of this thread, Makefile.local is
> included before options-handling, and the test for inclusion of
> bsd.gcc.mk. Why did you think otherwise? Using Makefile.local is
> generally safer because of its narrower scope, and because it cannot
> be included multiple times if make(1) is invoked recursively, unlike
> make.conf.
>
> b.
Hi everyone,
Thank you for the correction to placement of the USE_GCC directive.
Clearly, I went for the "hammer" solution a little too quickly!
Cheers,
Greg
- --
Greg Larkin
http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve
http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code.
http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk7qXIYACgkQ0sRouByUApAruACfbbesKuJBXybzJamMxFwm18tE
cfkAnA2VsTCB+VfChcWd3mHf+/mgibf8
=aKXZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EEA5C86.7070107>