Date: 05 Jan 2002 15:45:33 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail.ru> To: Simon 'corecode' Schubert <corecode@corecode.ath.cx> Cc: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>, alane@geeksrus.net, petef@databits.net, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for all ports Message-ID: <1010238330.248.24.camel@notebook> In-Reply-To: <20020105135102.5f555dee.corecode@corecode.ath.cx> References: <1098.192.168.167.6.1009294752.squirrel@192.168.167.1> <20011225104517.B42161@databits.net> <20011225154953.GA82681@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <20020105000837.A287@straylight.oblivion.bg> <20020105135102.5f555dee.corecode@corecode.ath.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-JnZYTs8m+FenVd33w/D/ Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2002-01-05 at 14:51, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:08:37 +0200 Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> > wrote: >=20 > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 10:49:53AM -0500, Alan Eldridge wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 10:45:17AM -0500, Pete Fritchman wrote: > > > >++ 26/12/01 02:39 +1100 - Daeron: > > > >| Could you include in your guidelines for ports directories a > > > >| request that everyone use "CONFIGURE_ARGS+=3D" instead of a > > > >| "CONFIGURE_ARGS=3D" to allow people to pass additional parameter= s > > > >| without having to hack the Makefile. Perhaps you could consider > > > >| running a script to update any existing port-Makefiles seeming > > > >| it is such a small change? > > > > > > > >I agree with you. What do others think? > > > > > > > >I'd be willing to do the change, as well. > > >=20 > > > Are there any ports (using MASTERDIR, maybe, to build out of another > > > ports dir, or the MASTERDIR port itself) where this could break > > > something? I would recommend against using a script to do it.=20 > > >=20 > > > But a grep and manual changes? I think it's a good idea. > >=20 > > [ok, so this is an old thread, so I am a lazy slob who does not like > > to read a lot of mail during the holidays.. so sue me! ;] > >=20 > [...] > > Well, to start with, this would break dependencies.. > > A port's CONFIGURE_ARGS are set in the environment when make(1) > > is invoked for a build-, lib- or run-dependency, so a +=3D in that > > dependency would inherit the first port's arguments. Not really > > a good thing in general, is it now.. >=20 > that's perfectly true, though there should be a way to customize ports > without having to modify makefiles. this could be another "port option" > (as discussed in another thread) that gets recorded in /var/db/ and used > when building an updated version of a port (eg. via portupgrade). >=20 > i'd really like to see such an extension to the ports system. ready to > volunteer! Very similar behavior right now could be obtained by creating Makefile.local in the port's directory - settings in this file will override ones in the main Makefile, so you can set "sticky" options and tweaks (Makefile.local will never be touched by cvsup). The same goes for original question regarding CONFIGURE_ARGS. -Maxim --=-JnZYTs8m+FenVd33w/D/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA8NwN5oNu5t4iCBa8RAoDAAJwL9A6YyBibT9rfAT8at1iH6zXQHgCfUy/6 rB5wYVFQ1xEaN/otHYM66Qw= =1IpA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-JnZYTs8m+FenVd33w/D/-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1010238330.248.24.camel>