ports/58525: [PATCH] port devel/portlint: USE_* should be no user-settable option

Oliver Eikemeier eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Sat Oct 25 13:39:16 PDT 2003

Thomas-Martin Seck wrote:

> * Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com>:
>>Some ports use user-settable options that start with USE_*. These are reserved
>>for bsd.port.mk and friends, and may give strange results when defined on the
>>command line or in make.conf. For example:
>> cd security/gnupg; make install USE_OPENLDAP=yes
>>fails when OpenLDAP is not installed, but succeeds when OpenLDAP is installed.
>>Affected ports:
> ...
> While I appreciate your effort to clean up the USE_* namespace, this
> seems somewhat half-baked to me. Why not go one step further: no port
> should be allowed to use the USE_<OPTION> namespace for user specified
> options. Instead, they should use the USE_<PORT>_OPTION or
> WITH{,OUT}<PORT>_OPTION (or <PORT>_{USE,WITH,WITHOUT}_, for what it's
> worth) namespace. Variables in the USE_<OPTION> namespace should only be
> specified by portmgr@ for internal use or to set "global" dependencies,
> similar to Gentoo Linux's "use=".
> Implementing this would enable one to specify all tunables one wants to
> set in a central location like /etc/make.conf without having to fear
> bizarre side effects and without having to resort to a bunch of
> Makefile.locals or portupgrade and its MAKE_ARGS facility.

While I appreciate your dedication to the best possible solution, I have
more than two half-baked scripts implementing parsed WITH_* options. I
Would be pleased to participate in a project that specifies and implements
such a concept. In the meantime I think this patch is a small step towards
deprecating USE_* as user-settable options, with USE_GCC being an unfortunate
exception. You are right, this patch is trivial, but it deals with current


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list