Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 07:56:42 -0500 From: Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: FreeBSD Ports Mailing List <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: New Port Options infrastructure bug Message-ID: <CADLFtteYQfZmkTWYvRf0H-0zANWRR1=eZAfhLEqK4m6HrrOrfg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9D8B743E1D37426B81B71BD531ABE2E6@multiplay.co.uk> References: <9D8B743E1D37426B81B71BD531ABE2E6@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> wrote:
> I've just been looking at devel/rubygem-multi_json and was
> perplexed by how it wasn't saving my options.
>
> It seems that how the new port options infrastructure determines
> where to load and store its configured options from is quite
> flaky and breaks with anything that amends PKGNAMEPREFIX within
> a sub Makefile such as python, ruby etc.
>
> Having searched long for the issue it seems lots of ports
> are having to work-around this problem as indicated by
> comments such as:-
>
> # bypass infrastructure bug (taken from www/py-django)
> OPTIONSFILE= ${PORT_DBDIR}/py-${PORTNAME}/options
>
> Is this a know issue which has someone is working on it or are
> port creators being left deal with this on a case by case
> basis?
See here: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2013-April/083035.html
I don't really have much of time to create patch and test until
somewhere in June.
> Obviously its extremely frustrating from a user perspective
> to find out that the options chosen aren't actually being
> applied as they are failing to save / load :(
>
> Regards
> Steve
--
mezz.freebsd@gmail.com - mezz@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLFtteYQfZmkTWYvRf0H-0zANWRR1=eZAfhLEqK4m6HrrOrfg>