From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jul 30 17:05:30 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0430F16A4CF
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:05:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.tiscali.cz (stateless2.tiscali.cz [213.235.135.71])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413C743D66
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:05:29 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from hsn@netmag.cz)
Received: from sanatana.dharma (213.235.69.128) by mail.tiscali.cz (6.7.021)
	id 40E84FD100AE86B3 for ports@freebsd.org;
	Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:05:25 +0200
Received: from hsn@localhost
	by sanatana.dharma (Exim 4.34_0 FreeBSD) id 1Bqaea-000CIc-9v
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:54:44 +0200
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:54:44 +0200
From: Radim Kolar <hsn@netmag.cz>
To: ports@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20040730165444.GA36115@sanatana.dharma>
Mail-Followup-To: ports@freebsd.org
References: <20040727122823.40c6c3c5@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
	<BF9C33C8-DFB4-11D8-BCFE-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BF9C33C8-DFB4-11D8-BCFE-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Subject: Re: configuring ports via Makefile.local
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:05:30 -0000

Supporting Makefile.local is a good idea. It allows per-port configuration
without using external tools like portupgrade and without making some obscure
constructs in make.conf. It is easy to understand and port subsystem already
handles it for last 5 years and there is a policy about not committing makefile.local into ports tree. There is no reason for throwing makefile.local away.

Porter handbook section about port options must be changed in any case.
OPTIONS= are also not documented there. In any case (makefile.local and
options)port.pre.mk must be included before making tests against customized
options set by user.  I am willing to write this porter handbook update.

> To make it `supported' it has the be documented somewhere, which is something
> I won't like to see.
Do you want to see OPTIONS= as only method supported? Converting all ports into
OPTIONS= is also solution of this problem. I do not know about this conversion time line. Makefile.local and OPTIONS can both co-exist.