Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:08:39 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> To: Benjamin Lutz <benlutz@datacomm.ch> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OPTIONS and WITH/WITHOUT variables Message-ID: <20060321170839.36900b3a@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <200603211537.09551.benlutz@datacomm.ch> References: <200603211537.09551.benlutz@datacomm.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:37:05 +0100 Benjamin Lutz <benlutz@datacomm.ch> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060321170839.36900b3a>