ports include /etc/src.conf? i.e. graphics/libfpx

Mikhail T. mi+thun at aldan.algebra.com
Thu Feb 14 12:27:48 UTC 2013

13.02.2013 11:22, O. Hartmann написав(ла):
>> > If this is taken literally then could it be said that ports that use
>> > bsd.lib.mk are broken because they are using makefile includes from
>> > the source tree?
>> > 
>> > -Kimmo
For one, the particular port (its Makefile.bsd) was created in 2001,
five years before src.conf appeared. The intent of creating a separate
src.conf, I believe, was to shield a world-build from "crazy" options
someone could've put into their make.conf for the benefit of building a
port or two... But I may be mistaken.
> I would consider them broken!
On the contrary. I wish, more ports were using the system's bsd.*.mk
collection -- instead of the godawful autoconf, for example. What does
the port's Makefile.bsd say? It says: "These are the sources, this is
the name of the library I want. Please, create it." That's all... It is
how things are supposed to be, in my opinion. If the bsd.*.mk collection
was not meant to be used outside of /usr/src, then it wouldn't be
installed (under /usr/share/mk) for the decades, that BSD exists.

Maybe, the bsd.*.mk collection should be smarter -- and not include
src.conf -- when .CURDIR is outside of /usr/src. I'm not sure...
> How could I track down problems if they are results of intermixed config
> files when the manpage explicitely tells me, that the /etc/src.conf is
> only for the build of the operating system?
If the manual says that, it is incorrect -- if only because it does not
reflect (as you've experienced) the practice, that existed long before
the manual was written. As for your tracking down problems, I'd say, it
should be very easy for you to recognize the flags you've added by hand
-- even if you've added them to where you believed, they would not
affect a port.


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list