Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 21:32:09 -0500 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports with CPPFLAGS in CONFIGURE_(ARGS|ENV) Message-ID: <20110918213209.4ae961b7@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgmG_R=_YiWWFd1TL5ukLgRQzeSPfntjd6-7qM7iL54i=g@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110918161341.306503ab@cox.net> <CAF6rxgkq8upGAKzGe7Cv5dv6eJP9VmhYvShojzqCiwLPvPtKgg@mail.gmail.com> <20110918203305.49b9df46@cox.net> <CAF6rxgmG_R=_YiWWFd1TL5ukLgRQzeSPfntjd6-7qM7iL54i=g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 21:38:46 -0400 Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> wrote: > > Do you mean one gigantic, monolithic patch that would amend all of > > them, or a large set of individual patches (last I checked, there > > were ~1453 ports in need of this sort of revision)? =C2=A0I could go > > either way, just need to know which would be preferred. >=20 > One monolithic patch (preferably generated with "cvs diff -Nu") OK. Just a few more questions: portlint -A issues no warning in the case of CPPFLAGS being added to CONFIGURE_ARGS. Should I concern myself only with CONFIGURE_ENV, or would it be best to modify in either case? Also, is there any possibility of either CONFIGURE_ENV or CONFIGURE_ARGS being used in some non-standard fashion, i.e., with anything other than a GNU configure script, meaning they should just be left alone? Just trying to avoid any potential "gotchas". Thanks again. --=20 Conrad J. Sabatier conrads@cox.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110918213209.4ae961b7>