Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 12:47:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: proper use of bsd.port.options.mk Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1105160754150.22315@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin08WiMbkzpKmq_zaz2cGp0esMJxg@mail.gmail.com> References: <4DD09B45.9070306@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1105152216460.20421@wonkity.com> <BANLkTin08WiMbkzpKmq_zaz2cGp0esMJxg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---902635197-120177441-1305555457=:22315 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1105161241111.23548@wonkity.com> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Chris Rees wrote: > On 16 May 2011 05:18, Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 15 May 2011, Doug Barton wrote: >> >>> I'm confused (yeah, I know, nothing new about that). From >>> ports/Mk/bsd.port.options.mk: >>> >>> # usage: >>> # >>> # .include "bsd.port.options.mk" >>> # <deal with user options> >>> # .include "bsd.port.pre.mk" >>> # <other work, including adjusting dependencies> >>> # .include "bsd.port.post.mk" >>> >>> >>> However the ports I've looked at so far all do: >>> >>> OPTIONS= blah >>> >>> .include <bsd.port.options.mk> >>> >>> blah >>> >>> .include <bsd.port.mk> >>> EOF >>> >>> I assume that this method works, since it seems like so many ports use it. >>> Should the notes in options.mk be updated? >> >> Yes, it should be updated. See examples "5.8 Simple use of OPTIONS" and >> "5.9 Old style use of OPTIONS" in the Porter's Handbook: >> >> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-options.html > > No, because stuff is done in pre.mk which is not done in OPTIONS; > handling dependencies such as USE_BZIP2 or USE_JAVA for example. The comments ought to be updated to at least show both forms. > After options processing, pre.mk is only needed if you need to do the > above, which is why it's missed out on most ports. Could you give an example? I looked, but nothing obvious jumped out. > The Handbook part refers to 'SIMPLE' use of OPTIONS, so perhaps should > have a 'complex' use of options as well... "Advanced" is the less-scary euphemism. ---902635197-120177441-1305555457=:22315--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1105160754150.22315>