On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Mel Flynn wrote:
On 12-6-2012 2:38, Warren Block wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2012, Mel Flynn wrote:
On 20-5-2012 14:06, Chris Rees wrote:
Usually. Sometimes it's (ab)used to include the relevant bsd.*.mk
file without adding dependencies (WANT_GNOME), but normally that's
what
On 12-6-2012 2:38, Warren Block wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012, Mel Flynn wrote:
>
>> On 20-5-2012 14:06, Chris Rees wrote:
>>
>>> Usually. Sometimes it's (ab)used to include the relevant bsd.*.mk
>>> file without adding dependencies (WANT_GNOME), but normally that's
>>> what WANT_ is used for.
>>>
On Fri, 25 May 2012, Mel Flynn wrote:
On 20-5-2012 14:06, Chris Rees wrote:
Usually. Sometimes it's (ab)used to include the relevant bsd.*.mk
file without adding dependencies (WANT_GNOME), but normally that's
what WANT_ is used for.
Definitely add a warning that if you want to use a WANT_ va
On 20-5-2012 14:06, Chris Rees wrote:
> Usually. Sometimes it's (ab)used to include the relevant bsd.*.mk
> file without adding dependencies (WANT_GNOME), but normally that's
> what WANT_ is used for.
>
> Definitely add a warning that if you want to use a WANT_ variable you
> should also check t
on 21/05/2012 05:54 Gerald Pfeifer said the following:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012, Andriy Gapon wrote:
+CFLAGS+= ${CFLAGS.${CC}}
+CXXFLAGS+=${CXXFLAGS.${CC}}
>>>
>>> Similarly here. Where does this come from, why is it related to
>>> the WITH_GCC versus USE_GCC patch?
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> +CFLAGS+= ${CFLAGS.${CC}}
>>> +CXXFLAGS+= ${CXXFLAGS.${CC}}
>>
>> Similarly here. Where does this come from, why is it related to
>> the WITH_GCC versus USE_GCC patch? Can and should this be split
>> out? How is it used and where?
On 20 May 2012 06:18, Warren Block wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012, Mark Linimon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:10:25AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>
>>> P.S.
>>> Perhaps this information should also be somewhere in the Porter's
>>> Handbook.
>>
>>
>> It is scattered around in it:
>>
>> WITH
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:10:25AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
P.S.
Perhaps this information should also be somewhere in the Porter's Handbook.
It is scattered around in it:
WITH/WITHOUT:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbo
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:10:25AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> P.S.
> Perhaps this information should also be somewhere in the Porter's Handbook.
It is scattered around in it:
WITH/WITHOUT:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-options.html#AEN2542
USE:
ht
on 16/05/2012 04:35 Gerald Pfeifer said the following:
> Hi Andriy,
>
> Mark Linimon worked on a similar patchset in the past. Have the
> two of you synced and shared patches? I did review some of his
> a bit ago, and while I do not have that any more, I believe it
> was somewhat different than
Hi Andriy,
Mark Linimon worked on a similar patchset in the past. Have the
two of you synced and shared patches? I did review some of his
a bit ago, and while I do not have that any more, I believe it
was somewhat different than your approach.
I'll provide some comments below. Note, I am not o
on 10/05/2012 10:28 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> Here's an updated version of the patch.
> It should allow for initial bootstrapping of GCC itself.
Next version of the patch...
Hopefully it should handle the bootstrapping better by accounting for lang/gcc*
ports dependencies and avoiding cre
on 10/05/2012 19:48 Scot Hetzel said the following:
> For Mk/bsd.database.mk - the meaning of USE_, WITH_ and WANT_ variables are:
>
> USE_* - Maintainer - Add dependency. If no version is given (by the
> maintainer via the port or by the user via defined variable), try to
> find the currently ins
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 06/05/2012 12:27 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>> My makefile-fu and ports-infrastructure-fu are really weak (maybe
>> non-existent
>> even), but here is my attempt: [see the attachment].
>>
>> The idea behind the patch:
>> - if WITH_GC
on 06/05/2012 12:27 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> My makefile-fu and ports-infrastructure-fu are really weak (maybe non-existent
> even), but here is my attempt: [see the attachment].
>
> The idea behind the patch:
> - if WITH_GCC is not defined, then everything should be as before
> - if WIT
15 matches
Mail list logo
