serpentine port forces dependency on muine

[Peter Pentchev]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 09:29:10PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:10:06 +0300
> > From: Peter Pentchev <roam at ringlet.net>
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:47:48AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > > > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:05:12 +0100
> > > > From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> > > > 
> > > > Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > If muine found in /usr/local/bin/, it will be built with the plug-in,
> > > > > regardless of which way the MUINE configure option is set because:
> > > > > .if (defined(MUINE) || exists(${LOCALBASE}/bin/muine)) && ${ARCH}=="i386"
> > > > 
> > > > This is incorrect behaviour in any case: ports should not arbitrarily change configuration depending on what is or is not already installed, and user
> > > > choices from OPTIONS dialogues should be paramount.  The test should be:
> > > > 
> > > > .if defined(WITH_MUINE) && !defined(WITHOUT_MUINE) && ${ARCH} =="i386"
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The more I look at this port, the stranger it is.
> > 
> > Uhm, no it isn't, not really :)
> > 
> > > It has OPTIONS=, but does not include bsd.port.options.mk.
> > 
> > It includes bsd.port.pre.mk before testing the option.  The part that
> > takes care of displaying the dialog window to the user is in
> > bsd.port.pre.mk.  This part of the port's Makefile is correct.
> 
> Whole this may work, it is not recommended by the Porter's
> Handbook. (See 5.11.2.2). Still, I suspect it does work as used here.

Errr, this part of the Porter's Handbook only appeared three months
ago, when portmgr@ (Pav Lucistnik in particular, I guess, since it was
he who did most of the work) decided that bsd.port.options.mk was ready
for production use :)  Okay, so the serpentine port hasn't been updated
to use options.mk, but there are a lot of other ports that haven't yet
(and yes, I know that some of them are mine ;)

[snip]
> OK. I totally mis-read the Makefile and got most of my comments wrong.

Nah, it's really not that hard to mis-parse a port Makefile - there are
many knobs controlling many aspects of the build, and some of them are
quite alike and can be mistaken for each other.  Happens to everyone :)
(and before someone misparses this, I'm *not* criticizing the Ports
Collection - it's great, it just takes some getting used to - continually -
as any more-or-less complex thing in constant development should)

> I do hope that ahze will "fix" this so that it behaves as people are most
> likely to expect it to behave. I will go ahead and update the PR I
> submitted on this to simply suggest the removal of the 
> "|| exists(${LOCALBASE}/bin/muine".
> 
> Thanks for you patience in this.

No problem, and apologies if my last message has struck you as maybe
a bit confrontational.  It was meant as a friendly explanation, and
the reason it started off with a couple of "No, that's not right"
points is that I wasn't thinking too clearly at two in the morning.

Thanks for *your* patience and understanding!

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev	roam at ringlet.net    roam at space.bg    roam at FreeBSD.org
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
If I were you, who would be reading this sentence?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20090827/98c877fb/attachment.pgp