On 10 Oct 2012 11:19, "Michael Gmelin" <free...@grem.de> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I noticed that HAVE_GNOME doesn't work properly with
> bsd.ports.options.mk yet, so
>
> .include <bsd.port.options.mk>
> .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mgnomelibs}!=""
> # ...
> .endif
> .include <bsd.port.mk>
>
> won't work, while this
>
> .include <bsd.port.pre.mk>
> .if ${HAVE_GNOME:Mgnomelibs}!=""
> # ...
> .endif
> .include <bsd.port.post.mk>
>
> does.
>
> AFAIK bsd.port.pre.mk/bsd.port.post.mk should be replaced by
> bsd.port.options.mk/bsd.port.mk in the long term, so having this work
> or documenting a workaround would help port maintainers who are
> in the process of updating the port structure.No. They are two separate methods with two different reasons for using them. You have discovered a case of pre.mk being the correct one to use, which is unusual :) Chris _______________________________________________ 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"
