HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes

[Eivind Eklund]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:59:39PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Eivind Eklund wrote:
> >improvement).  And I thought it was supposed to be unique, while it seems 
> >it isn't.  That said, I think the name LATEST_LINK should be changed 
> >(possibly
> >not right now) if LATEST_LINK is to be used this way. 
> >
> >Also, I don't see why LATEST_LINK would always be unique - instead, it 
> >looks to
> >me as if there could be conflicts between different ports on this (while I 
> >thought
> >we defined that there shouldn't be for PORTNAME).
> 
> The problem with the current solution is that renaming OPTIONSFILE is not
> easy, because ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME} is somewhat hardcoded in bsd.port.mk
> now. I can change PORT_DBDIR, but have to accept ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME},
> which is bad. Perhaps we should have
> OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${LATEST_LINK}.options,
> which is easier to change.

I don't think this particular name is usable right now - we "need" something
that falls back to ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}, as the OPTIONS system is now
in production, ports have started to use it[1], and people will have started
storing options in just a few hours.  Unless we can resolve this within
those few hours, we need to have the same ultimate fallback.

[1] Well, only security/snort so far, so I'm going to ask the committer to
    back that out until the present hoopla is sorted out.

> LATEST_LINK should be unique for each package, and I guess if two ports 
> have the same LATEST_LINK they CONFLICT anyway.

Whether they conflict is really immaterial - they shouldn't share options.

> But I don't care if we use LATEST_LINK or something else, as long as it
> is easily changeable in the case of conflicts.

PORTNAME?  ;-)

Eivind.