okay to .include "${PORTSDIR}/Mk/bsd.java.mk"?

Oliver Eikemeier eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Sun Jun 20 07:59:52 PDT 2004

Sam Lawrance wrote:

> Just looked at the thread started by Volker Stolz along similar lines
> with USE_QT_VER and ports/64233.
> It seems that there are two conflicting needs, neither of which are
> currently met:
> * ports that want to set the inputs to bsd.port.pre.mk based on
> OPTIONS-generated WITH_* variables (my problem)
> * ports that want to set the OPTIONS available based on the outputs of
> bsd.port.pre.mk (as outlined in the PR)
> ie
> * OPTIONS -> (process OPTIONS) -> WITH_* -> bsd.port.pre.mk
> * bsd.port.pre.mk -> (generate OPTIONS) -> (process OPTIONS) -> WITH_*
> Perhaps options processing should be able to be included where it is
> needed - "bsd.port.options.mk"?
> In either case both scenarios at once for a single port is not currently
> possible unless bsd.port.pre.mk gets fragmented into pre- and
> post-OPTIONS bits (or including bsd.port.pre.mk twice is allowed :).

I have a different approach in PR 64233: pre-include options when
available. A bsd.port.options.mk would just be a hack working around
the many deficiencies of OPTIONS. IMHO OPTIONS should be deprecated
and replaced by something better. I would like to see a graphical
configuration tool, but OPTIONS is just badly designed and hard to
support, so it causes more problems than it solves.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list