Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:40:39 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAVE_GNOME vs. bsd.ports.options.mk Message-ID: <CADLo83-K%2Bi0rU9ssWuB8K9UTXRBa478UBBP1zrzChfAmtT5J%2Bw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121010121850.039fb6d2@bsd64.grem.de> References: <20121010121850.039fb6d2@bsd64.grem.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10 Oct 2012 11:19, "Michael Gmelin" <freebsd@grem.de> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I noticed that HAVE_GNOME doesn't work properly with
> bsd.ports.options.mk yet, so
>
> .include <bsd.port.options.mk>
> .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mgnomelibs}!=""
> # ...
> .endif
> .include <bsd.port.mk>
>
> won't work, while this
>
> .include <bsd.port.pre.mk>
> .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mgnomelibs}!=""
> # ...
> .endif
> .include <bsd.port.post.mk>
>
> does.
>
> AFAIK bsd.port.pre.mk/bsd.port.post.mk should be replaced by
> bsd.port.options.mk/bsd.port.mk in the long term, so having this work
> or documenting a workaround would help port maintainers who are
> in the process of updating the port structure.
No. They are two separate methods with two different reasons for using them.
You have discovered a case of pre.mk being the correct one to use, which is
unusual :)
Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-K%2Bi0rU9ssWuB8K9UTXRBa478UBBP1zrzChfAmtT5J%2Bw>