Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:59:39 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes Message-ID: <400D344B.6010403@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040120133020.GB94636@FreeBSD.org> References: <1074590694.85583.20.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <400D2939.5090203@fillmore-labs.com> <20040120133020.GB94636@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eivind Eklund wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:12:25PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
>
>>Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>Type: FEATURE
>>>
>>>Title: Add per-port persistent build options with a menu-driven
>>>front-end
>>>
>>>[...]
>>
>>Sorry for stepping up so late, but this saves options under
>> ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}/options
>>
>>Lots of ports have the same PORTNAME (ie 'openldap' for
>>net/openldap2[012]-(client|server), 'apache' for russian/apache13,
>>www/apache(13|13-fp|2|21)). Some conflict, but -client/-server don't.
>>Either each port has to set OPTIONSFILE to
>>${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}/something,
>>or we may use LATEST_LINK instead of PORTNAME:
>
> I can't have any particularly reasoned opinion either way - the use
> of PORTNAME is inherited from kris, who replaced storing in a file
> in the port source directory with the use of PORTNAME (IMO, a large
> improvement). And I thought it was supposed to be unique, while it seems
> it isn't. That said, I think the name LATEST_LINK should be changed (possibly
> not right now) if LATEST_LINK is to be used this way.
>
> Also, I don't see why LATEST_LINK would always be unique - instead, it looks to
> me as if there could be conflicts between different ports on this (while I thought
> we defined that there shouldn't be for PORTNAME).
The problem with the current solution is that renaming OPTIONSFILE is not
easy, because ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME} is somewhat hardcoded in bsd.port.mk
now. I can change PORT_DBDIR, but have to accept ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME},
which is bad. Perhaps we should have
OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${LATEST_LINK}.options,
which is easier to change.
LATEST_LINK should be unique for each package, and I guess if two ports have the
same LATEST_LINK they CONFLICT anyway. But I don't care if we use LATEST_LINK or
something else, as long as it is easily changeable in the case of conflicts.
-Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?400D344B.6010403>