HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes

Oliver Eikemeier eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Tue Jan 20 09:43:29 PST 2004

Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 12:13, Eivind Eklund wrote:
>>On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:45:47AM -0500, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
>>>On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 08:12, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
>>[snipped description of options patches. -EE]
>>>>Sorry for stepping up so late, but this saves options under
>>>>  ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}/options
>>>>Lots of ports have the same PORTNAME (ie 'openldap' for
>>>>net/openldap2[012]-(client|server), 'apache' for russian/apache13,
>>>>www/apache(13|13-fp|2|21)). Some conflict, but -client/-server don't.
>>>>Either each port has to set OPTIONSFILE to ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}/something,
>>>>or we may use LATEST_LINK instead of PORTNAME:
>>>What's the general consensus on this (is there one)?  What about ports
>>>that set NO_LATEST_LINK?  In any event, the patch below would need to be
>>>tested on bento again (uggghh).  Since OPTIONSFILE is currently
>>>overrideable, couldn't porters that have conflicting PORTNAMEs, set this
>>>file to a unique name.  For example:
>>>OPTIONSFILE=	${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}/options.mozilla-devel
>>>Wouldn't that satisfy most people?
>>>Perhaps we could shorten the public
>>>OPTIONSFILE to just specify the filename, and do all the grunt work in
>>The following implements that, and is a fairly trivial patch.
>>It might be even better to call "OPTIONSNAME" something like
> This looks okay to me, a gives the power to the porter to decide on a
> truly unique name for options.
>>There is no obvious consensus - I have no particular opinion beyond
>>what I've already said (ie, that the name of LATEST_LINK seems inappropriate
>>if it is to be used as a unique name.)
> I agree.  This approach seems the most flexible.  As for not being able
> to do non-root installs, this is a bogus argument as one could simply
> override PORT_DBDIR as they would PKG_DBDIR (even with the original
> patch).
> Could you also change the comment documentation to reflect the new
> macros?  Unless there are serious objections to this, I'll commit this
> approach.
> Joe
>>Index: bsd.port.mk
>>RCS file: /home/pcvs/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk,v
>>retrieving revision 1.475
>>diff -u -r1.475 bsd.port.mk
>>--- bsd.port.mk	20 Jan 2004 09:14:09 -0000	1.475
>>+++ bsd.port.mk	20 Jan 2004 17:07:33 -0000
>>@@ -1017,7 +1034,8 @@
>> # where 'make config' records user configuration options
>> PORT_DBDIR?=	/var/db/ports

Can we at least have


here? It makes sense for all the localized ports, perl, ruby, python, linux
and others.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list