From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Dec 15 14:37:59 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA811065672;
	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:37:59 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com)
Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com
	[209.85.161.54])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93BA68FC13;
	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:37:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by faaf16 with SMTP id f16so3368347faa.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:37:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
	:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=G+aq2PKP6GfS+NYGOVM3pAMXjxvtLMUVSIwMrX2cgZs=;
	b=uDccxV/a9v4ZKnW7FIplKlk/gj8eYXJ1B2YmZRxeXoigqyTNJC5w8/7SJ17b+WVsFK
	oyA+ITCL0Y7IboYuMpgSp42Qiq2J/DJXM54m1sz4bVHKddSnkZUqQuttJ6V0oa4yLXRW
	Z7KZtjwQ7nT6OyI7BPnk3OxTANgMBWv2+r3uY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.14.129 with SMTP id p1mr5683052wic.8.1323959877315; Thu,
	15 Dec 2011 06:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.100.129 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:37:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALa-7vxfRwhqRcQPATtumfv6YPA5HZ==VqGRKcZw-V2pzJXYPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGFTUwO_mXzUcsWTvn01=uxGg1CgXratdQKDbUYxR-06bha5zg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALa-7vxfRwhqRcQPATtumfv6YPA5HZ==VqGRKcZw-V2pzJXYPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:37:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGFTUwMphOEFC0M0YfUxs3iUAWLbpMcPKB5VOm1E-jFFr-uQug@mail.gmail.com>
From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com>
To: "Andrew W. Nosenko" <andrew.w.nosenko@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Building ports with gcc46
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bf1783@gmail.com
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:37:59 -0000

On 12/15/11, Andrew W. Nosenko <andrew.w.nosenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:05, b. f. <bf1783@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> If you are interested in applying them to a single port, use a test on
>> .CURDIR,
>> or, better yet, add the statement to any of the optional Makefiles that
>> are
>> automatically included by bsd.port.mk and were intended for that purpose
>> --
>> ${MASTERDIR}/Makefile.local, for example.
>
> Unfortunatelly, the Makefile.local included too late for have any
> positive/intended effect (e.g. define port-specific WITH/WITHOUT knob,
> modify CONFIGURE_ARGS,...) in many cases/ports.  Therefore, advise to
> use Makefile.local is unreliable.  And we left in situation, where
> make.conf is the only one reasonable working solution :-(

Certainly Makefile.local is not included as early as make.conf, and so
may not be used for every purpose for which make.conf may be used.
But with regard to the topic of this thread, Makefile.local  is
included before options-handling, and the test for inclusion of
bsd.gcc.mk.  Why did you think otherwise?  Using Makefile.local is
generally safer because of its narrower scope, and because it cannot
be included multiple times if make(1) is invoked recursively, unlike
make.conf.

b.