Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 22 Apr 2011 04:02:42 -0400
From:      Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com>
To:        Carl <k0802647@telus.net>
Cc:        freebsd@edvax.de, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: building a port with very long list of build options
Message-ID:  <BANLkTik3K7ed7Y1q_47y3=iFhOGwALP0-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DB1297E.6090205@telus.net>
References:  <4DB0F34B.9030008@telus.net> <BANLkTinn53mqc=2rkWqMAqZJvdK-vydP7A@mail.gmail.com> <4DB1297E.6090205@telus.net>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Carl <k0802647@telus.net> wrote:

> 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
>




Please study make manual page in detail . There are many more commands to be
applicable ,
for example  ( .include ) which you may use to include the original make
file name Makefile at any suitable point in your own make file .


Also studying the currently used Makefile files in FreeBSD may give many
ideas to apply .

Thank you very much .


Mehmet Erol Sanliturk



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTik3K7ed7Y1q_47y3=iFhOGwALP0-A>