Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:15:19 +0400 From: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> To: Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Shaun Amott <shaun@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: bsd.port.options.mk status Message-ID: <20070912141519.GA63690@hades.panopticon> In-Reply-To: <20070912130921.GA77497@amilo.cenkes.org> 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> <20070912130921.GA77497@amilo.cenkes.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Andrew Pantyukhin (infofarmer@FreeBSD.org) 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
That seems a very bad solution for me.
We'll have to introduce tons of WITH_{$FOO}_* variables, and we still
won't support all ways .if defined(WITH_*) are used now. Just try:
find /usr/ports -name Makefile | xargs -n100 cat | sed -n -e '/^\.if.*WITH_/,/^\.endif/ p'
.if's are far more flexible. And for my eyes, if's look cleaner.
> 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.
That is unfortunately true.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Marakasov mailto:amdmi3@amdmi3.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070912141519.GA63690>