Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:51:11 -0800 From: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: CC, CPP etc vs CONFIGURE_ENV Message-ID: <17056F94-B724-4EE1-A724-1B9A833D84F6@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <527A5F5B.4040800@FreeBSD.org> References: <527A51DF.9090507@FreeBSD.org> <88C65D6E-B4B1-4524-A588-276AADAE2342@mac.com> <527A5F5B.4040800@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 6, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>> Setting $CC and such worked with older ./configure which didn't =
implement $CONFIGURE_ENV.
>> It also plays more nicely with things which roll their own =
./configure as a shim
>> that isn't actually GNU autoconf.
>=20
> Apologies, you seem to think that CONFIGURE_ENV is an environment =
variable of
> its own. But, as far as I can see, it is not. It is a make variable =
with a
> value that expands to "FOO=3DBAR VAR=3DVAL ..." and those FOO, VAR, =
etc are the
> environment variables that are to be set in configure's environment:
>=20
> ${SETENV} ... ${CONFIGURE_ENV} ./${CONFIGURE_SCRIPT} ${CONFIGURE_ARGS}
Yes, setup via ports/bsd.options.mk and such (aka configure.mk on some =
other platforms).
> So, either I didn't understand what you said or what you said is not =
relevant.
That's fair enough-- I don't always manage to be both comprehensible and =
relevant. :-)
I seemed to recall that sufficiently modern configure's would look into
$CONFIGURE_ENV if you set it via:
export ${CONFIGURE_ENV}; ./${CONFIGURE_SCRIPT} ${CONFIGURE_ARGS}
...instead. But I don't see signs of that in GNU autoconf, so that =
might be
a non-standard thing.
Regards,
--=20
-Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17056F94-B724-4EE1-A724-1B9A833D84F6>