Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:08:46 -0700
From:      Carl <k0802647@telus.net>
To:        Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com>, freebsd@edvax.de
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: building a port with very long list of build options
Message-ID:  <4DB1297E.6090205@telus.net>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinn53mqc=2rkWqMAqZJvdK-vydP7A@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <4DB0F34B.9030008@telus.net> <BANLkTinn53mqc=2rkWqMAqZJvdK-vydP7A@mail.gmail.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 2011-04-21 8:52 PM, Polytropon wrote:
> This has been possible and common in the past. For example,
> the many options for the mplayer and mencoder ports could
> be specified in a file, so changing of a port's file was
> not needed. I'm not fully sure this option is still present,
> but at least on v7 it worked.
>
> Create a file Makefile.local in the port's directory and
> specify all your options as desired. This file will be
> sourced when you issue a "make" command and will override
> settings of the regular Makefile (e. g. if you want
> different CFLAGS for _this_ port). The file is to be in
> the known syntax, NAME=value.

Does that solution allow for locating Makefile.local outside the ports 
tree so as not to contaminate builds for other targets using the same 
ports tree?

On 2011-04-21 9:11 PM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
> If you read the make manual page , you will see the following option :
>
>                ...
>
>       *-f* *makefile*
> 	     Specify a makefile to read instead of the default one.
>
>               ...
>
>   which is used as
>
> make -f your_own_make_file_name
>
> This form will override the Makefile present in the current directory
> and will use the specified make file with name your_own_make_file_name .

Yes, I did see that, but I interpreted that to mean my make file 
*replaces* the original, in which case I would need to populate my make 
file not only with the list of build options I want but also a copy of 
everything in the original make file. If I'm correct, that doesn't seem 
to me to be a good idea from a maintenance perspective. I was hoping for 
something like the -f option that somehow inserted rather than replaced.

Carl                                             / K0802647



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DB1297E.6090205>