From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 21 15:08:45 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 9018316A425 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:08:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (it.buh.tecnik93.com [81.196.204.98]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5278343D72 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:08:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by it.buh.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7334917741; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:08:39 +0200 (EET) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:08:39 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: Benjamin Lutz Message-ID: <20060321170839.36900b3a@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <200603211537.09551.benlutz@datacomm.ch> References: <200603211537.09551.benlutz@datacomm.ch> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.0.0 (GTK+ 2.8.15; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OPTIONS and WITH/WITHOUT variables X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:08:45 -0000 On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:37:05 +0100 Benjamin Lutz wrote: > Hello, > > Section 5.11.2.2, Syntax of the Porter's Handbook says: > > | OPTIONS definition must appear before the inclusion of bsd.port.pre.mk. The > | WITH_* and WITHOUT_* variables can only be tested after the inclusion of > | bsd.port.pre.mk. Due to a deficiency in the infrastructure, you can only > | test WITH_* variables for options, which are OFF by default, and WITHOUT_* > | variables for options, which defaults to ON. > > However I noticed that for variables that default to on, a WITH_* variable is > defined. In fact the corresponding comment in bsd.port.mk does not mention > WITHOUT_* at all. And looking at the actual OPTIONS parsing code in > bsd.port.mk, starting at line 1135 of the current revision, I notice that it > seems to be exactly the other way round than described in the Porter's > Handbook (although I'm not sure I'm reading that correctly). Yes, this is a stale information; ignore it, you can test for any combination of WITH_* and WIHTOUT_* -- IOnut - Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" Either one of us, by himself, is expendable. Both of us are not. -- Kirk, "The Devil in the Dark", stardate 3196.1