Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 07:14:17 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r396248 - head/games/scummvm Message-ID: <20150908071417.GC58868@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <55EE8251.8020400@FreeBSD.org> References: <201509070625.t876PBJV079503@repo.freebsd.org> <663DB8E120502884DE748209@atuin.in.mat.cc> <20150907070846.GA23292@FreeBSD.org> <55EE412F.4080802@FreeBSD.org> <20150908063644.GA58868@FreeBSD.org> <55EE8251.8020400@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 04:38:09PM +1000, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > On 8/09/2015 4:36 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 12:00:15PM +1000, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > >> How about we exp-run for GNU_CONFIGURE=yes ports: > >> > >> CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --disable-silent-rules > >> MAKE_ENV+= V=1 (maybe even MAKE_ARGS) > > > > One problem here is that lots of ports have configure scripts generated > > before silent rules idea existed (and thus have no --disable-silent-rules > > switch). > > Mmmm, would those ports also be missing the automake bits for V=1 ? Passing a variable (V=1) should just work (ir)regardless of actual support, but I'm worried about namespace pollution, and that we cannot know/be sure that some part won't be interpreting V=1 to its own liking (which might not be exactly what we expect). So far, grepping the configure for version and --disable-silent-rules looks safer than always passing V=1 to make(1). ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150908071417.GC58868>