Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:42:57 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org>, Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes Message-ID: <400D68A1.4030501@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <1074619795.757.43.camel@gyros> References: <1074590694.85583.20.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <400D2939.5090203@fillmore-labs.com> <1074617147.757.16.camel@gyros> <20040120171315.GH94636@FreeBSD.org> <1074619795.757.43.camel@gyros>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 12:13, Eivind Eklund wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:45:47AM -0500, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 08:12, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
>>
>>[snipped description of options patches. -EE]
>>
>>>>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:
>>>
>>>What's the general consensus on this (is there one)? What about ports
>>>that set NO_LATEST_LINK? In any event, the patch below would need to be
>>>tested on bento again (uggghh). Since OPTIONSFILE is currently
>>>overrideable, couldn't porters that have conflicting PORTNAMEs, set this
>>>file to a unique name. For example:
>>>
>>>OPTIONSFILE= ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}/options.mozilla-devel
>>>
>>>Wouldn't that satisfy most people?
>>>Perhaps we could shorten the public
>>>OPTIONSFILE to just specify the filename, and do all the grunt work in
>>>bsd.port.mk...?
>>
>>The following implements that, and is a fairly trivial patch.
>>It might be even better to call "OPTIONSNAME" something like
>>"UNIQUENAME".
>
> This looks okay to me, a gives the power to the porter to decide on a
> truly unique name for options.
>
>>There is no obvious consensus - I have no particular opinion beyond
>>what I've already said (ie, that the name of LATEST_LINK seems inappropriate
>>if it is to be used as a unique name.)
>
> I agree. This approach seems the most flexible. As for not being able
> to do non-root installs, this is a bogus argument as one could simply
> override PORT_DBDIR as they would PKG_DBDIR (even with the original
> patch).
>
> Could you also change the comment documentation to reflect the new
> macros? Unless there are serious objections to this, I'll commit this
> approach.
>
> Joe
>
>
>>Index: bsd.port.mk
>>===================================================================
>>RCS file: /home/pcvs/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk,v
>>retrieving revision 1.475
>>diff -u -r1.475 bsd.port.mk
>>--- bsd.port.mk 20 Jan 2004 09:14:09 -0000 1.475
>>+++ bsd.port.mk 20 Jan 2004 17:07:33 -0000
>>@@ -1017,7 +1034,8 @@
>> # where 'make config' records user configuration options
>> PORT_DBDIR?= /var/db/ports
>>
>>-OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}/options
>>+OPTIONSNAME?=${PORTNAME}
>>+OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${OPTIONSNAME}/options
Can we at least have
OPTIONSNAME?=${PKGNAMEPREFIX}${PORTNAME}
here? It makes sense for all the localized ports, perl, ruby, python, linux
and others.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?400D68A1.4030501>