HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes

Oliver Eikemeier eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Tue Jan 20 05:59:52 PST 2004

Eivind Eklund wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:12:25PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
>>Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
>>>Type: FEATURE
>>>Title: Add per-port persistent build options with a menu-driven
>>Sorry for stepping up so late, but this saves options under
>> ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}/options
>>Lots of ports have the same PORTNAME (ie 'openldap' for
>>net/openldap2[012]-(client|server), 'apache' for russian/apache13,
>>www/apache(13|13-fp|2|21)). Some conflict, but -client/-server don't.
>>Either each port has to set OPTIONSFILE to 
>>or we may use LATEST_LINK instead of PORTNAME:
> I can't have any particularly reasoned opinion either way - the use
> of PORTNAME is inherited from kris, who replaced storing in a file
> in the port source directory with the use of PORTNAME (IMO, a large
> improvement).  And I thought it was supposed to be unique, while it seems 
> it isn't.  That said, I think the name LATEST_LINK should be changed (possibly
> not right now) if LATEST_LINK is to be used this way. 
> Also, I don't see why LATEST_LINK would always be unique - instead, it looks to
> me as if there could be conflicts between different ports on this (while I thought
> we defined that there shouldn't be for PORTNAME).

The problem with the current solution is that renaming OPTIONSFILE is not
easy, because ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME} is somewhat hardcoded in bsd.port.mk
now. I can change PORT_DBDIR, but have to accept ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME},
which is bad. Perhaps we should have
which is easier to change.

LATEST_LINK should be unique for each package, and I guess if two ports have the
same LATEST_LINK they CONFLICT anyway. But I don't care if we use LATEST_LINK or
something else, as long as it is easily changeable in the case of conflicts.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list