cvs commit: ports/multimedia/acidrip Makefile ports/math/algotutor Makefile ports/sysutils/apt Makefile ports/graphics/asciio Makefile ports/devel/autodia Makefile ports/www/awffull Makefile ports/devel/bazaar Makefile ports/www/bigbluebutton Mak

Alexey Dokuchaev danfe at
Mon Jan 23 06:39:51 UTC 2012

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:11:10PM +0100, Olli Hauer wrote:
> On 2012-01-22 17:00, Eitan Adler wrote:
> Hm, if I read the diffs Eitan has changed from `=' to `:='


> so I think you mean "Why should we stop using `='?"

No, I was quoting Eitan and he said ":=" (assign with immediate expansion).
It is obvious to me why we should not use "=" so I certainly would not have
asked "why we should stop using `='?"

> > The concern is that someone would add something extra to BUILD_DEPENDS
> > without thinking about it and thus add extra bogus RUN_DEPENDS. I'm
> > uncertain if there other additional reasons that portmgr dislikes :=
> It doesn't matter if you have RUN_DEPENDS=${BUILD_DEPENDS} or
> RUN_DEPENDS:=${BUILD_DEPENDS}, if someone adds additional `something' to
> BUILD_DEPENDS then it is in both cases also in RUN_DEPENDS but `:=`
> preserves including additional dependencies from `something'.

Of course it does matter.  Normally BUILD_DEPENDS are set to whatever you
need, and if that should also be your RUN_DEPENDS, assign them from bdeps
with :=.  Any changes to BUILD_DEPENDS after (including the ones happening
inside bpm and friends which is included later) would not taint RUN_DEPENDS.

> Maybe the following section in the PH will make things clearer.

Yes, I submitted this passage to PH because of my sincere frustration over
this silly mistake people were making again and again, because of plethora
of wrong examples in the ports, and because quality of ports submissions
and commit had dropped considerably during part several years.  Just imagine
it: people don't know how to use make(1)... *sigh*


More information about the cvs-all mailing list