Ports conflicts: `lib/libiberty.a'
ade at FreeBSD.org
Sat Oct 11 15:53:54 PDT 2003
On Friday, Oct 10, 2003, at 02:04 US/Pacific, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> I don't think, it is good idea to "CONFLICTS=" all these binutils &
> gcc. May be, we need some "general" patch (like libtool's one) to
> disable installation of this library? Something like
> In port makefile?
No. Please no. Oh lordy, no. The maze of options, variables, hacks,
and other bits and pieces needs to be reduced, not increased. It's a
staggeringly complex ball of wax already.
An excellent task for someone who wants to learn A LOT about the ports
tree as a single entity would be to run through the entire tree,
documenting all these magical flags, and, as a first shot, start
cleaning them up.
To take a random case in point, with no finger pointing, things like
the use of OpenLDAP has a metric shitload of different, but the same,
ways to do things, USE_LDAP, WITH_LDAP, USE_OPENLDAP, WITH_OPENLDAP,
WITH_OPENLDAP_VER, LDAP_PORT, etc.. etc..
A centralized place to refer to these knobs (a purely documentatary
bsd.knobs.mk, perhaps) detailing what they are, who uses them, and what
they do would go a long way to help, but some of the process would have
to be (non-trivially) automated in order to keep it up to date (no
small task in of itself).
I'm really starting to wonder whether we've reached the limits of what
can reasonably be accomplished with make(1) as we approach ports10k...
More information about the freebsd-ports