Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:09:22 +0400 From: Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: Shaun Amott <shaun@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org>, Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bsd.port.options.mk status Message-ID: <20070912130921.GA77497@amilo.cenkes.org> In-Reply-To: <20070912121830.GA84207@charon.picobyte.net> References: <20070909194620.GB14713@hades.panopticon> <1189368742.17083.37.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20070909220132.GC14713@hades.panopticon> <1189376094.17083.57.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20070910152612.GA15850@hades.panopticon> <1189443514.22893.10.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20070910220013.GO29407@amilo.cenkes.org> <20070912121830.GA84207@charon.picobyte.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 01:18:31PM +0100, Shaun Amott wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 02:00:14AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > > > So am I missing something or is it as trivial as using these four > > lines instead of one: > > > > USEOPTIONSMK= yes > > INOPTIONSMK= yes > > .include "bsd.port.mk" > > .undef INOPTIONSMK > > This is even uglier than our existing work-around solutions. :-) You snipped the question I was trying to answer, which was "is it possible?" Now IMHO the current way of handling options is ugly as a whole. We're trying to use paradigms from other languages in make. A make solution would look more like this: SOMELIST= FOO BAR BAZ WITH_FOO_CONFIGURE_ARGS= --with-foo WITHOUT_BAZ_PLIST_SUB+= BAZ="@comment " other BSD's have used this approach for some time now and it looks a lot cleaner than all the hacks we have, at least to my eyes. The reason I'm not rallying for cosmetics like that is that I fail to see make(1) as a future-proof base for ports.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070912130921.GA77497>