On 5/16/2011 3:23 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
On 16 May 2011 05:18, Warren Block<wbl...@wonkity.com> wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm confused (yeah, I know, nothing new about that). From
ports/Mk/bsd.port.options.mk:
# usage:
#
# .include "bsd.port.options.mk"
#<deal with user options>
# .include "bsd.port.pre.mk"
#<other work, including adjusting dependencies>
# .include "bsd.port.post.mk"
However the ports I've looked at so far all do:
OPTIONS= blah
.include<bsd.port.options.mk>
blah
.include<bsd.port.mk>
EOF
I assume that this method works, since it seems like so many ports use it.
Should the notes in options.mk be updated?
Yes, it should be updated. See examples "5.8 Simple use of OPTIONS" and
"5.9 Old style use of OPTIONS" in the Porter's Handbook:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-options.html
No, because stuff is done in pre.mk which is not done in OPTIONS;
handling dependencies such as USE_BZIP2 or USE_JAVA for example.
After options processing, pre.mk is only needed if you need to do the
above, which is why it's missed out on most ports.
The Handbook part refers to 'SIMPLE' use of OPTIONS, so perhaps should
have a 'complex' use of options as well...
Can you give an example of a port that needs this? I didn't find any
examples of ports doing it the "complex" way, but my search wasn't
exhaustive.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
