Date: 12 Oct 2003 12:11:19 -0000 From: tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck) To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports conflicts: `lib/libiberty.a' Message-ID: <20031012121119.653.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <C9367B46-FC3D-11D7-8071-000A956B6386@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Ade Lovett <ade@freebsd.org>: > No. Please no. Oh lordy, no. The maze of options, variables, hacks, > and other bits and pieces needs to be reduced, not increased. It's a > staggeringly complex ball of wax already. > > An excellent task for someone who wants to learn A LOT about the ports > tree as a single entity would be to run through the entire tree, > documenting all these magical flags, and, as a first shot, start > cleaning them up. > > To take a random case in point, with no finger pointing, things like > the use of OpenLDAP has a metric shitload of different, but the same, > ways to do things, USE_LDAP, WITH_LDAP, USE_OPENLDAP, WITH_OPENLDAP, > WITH_OPENLDAP_VER, LDAP_PORT, etc.. etc.. It would like to see a namespace policy wrt make variables in ports. I propose that portmgr@ is the authority to define a set of WITH_FOO variables for "global" use and that every port should be tough to use these and additionally WITH_PORTNAME_BAR for its own "local" tunables.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031012121119.653.qmail>