[Bug 222358] Mk/bsd.port.mk: include /etc/ports.conf as a file to hold ports-specific settings

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222358

            Bug ID: 222358
           Summary: Mk/bsd.port.mk: include /etc/ports.conf as a file to
                    hold ports-specific settings
           Product: Ports & Packages
           Version: Latest
          Hardware: Any
                OS: Any
            Status: New
          Severity: Affects Many People
          Priority: ---
         Component: Ports Framework
          Assignee: portmgr at FreeBSD.org
          Reporter: yasu at utahime.org
                CC: freebsd-ports-bugs at FreeBSD.org

Created attachment 186423
  --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=186423&action=edit
patch file

Writing ports-specific settings to /etc/make.conf is not good because such
settings are also applied when you 'make' something that has nothing to with
ports. There is a workaround to guard them as following:

.if !empty(.CURDIR:M*usr/ports*)

# settings that should be applied only for ports build.

.endif

But there is some cases that such a workaround does not work as expected. For
example,

1. When /usr/ports is symbolic link to somewhere else and real path is
somothing like /foo/bar/baz/portsdir.
2. When you decide to do some experiment, check out port tree to
/some/where/temp/ports, cd to /some/where/temp/ports/category/portname, edit
some files and try 'make PORTSDIR=/some/where/temp/ports'.

By contrast including file for ports-specific settings from bsd.port.mk works
well regardless of whether /usr/ports is symbolic link or not, whatever the
real path of /usr/ports is and whatever value is set as PORTSDIR. And in
addtion there is already similar best practice in base system, /etc/src.conf.
So I think this is better way to isolate ports-specific settings from others.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.