HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes

Sergei Kolobov sergei at FreeBSD.org
Tue Jan 20 09:13:39 PST 2004

On 2004-01-20 at 16:14 +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Marius Strobl wrote:
> >LATEST_LINK on the other hand per default includes PKGNAMESUFFIX so one
> >would end up with different OPTIONSFILEs for ports which add PKGNAMESUFFIX
> >based on optional features, think of all the ports that optionally can
> >be built with support for GNOME and then define "-gnome" as PKGNAMESUFFIX,
> >so OPTIONSFILE wouldn't be unique per port and defeat its purpose.

Forget about LATEST_LINK as the name is confusing.
PKGBASE is the thing (as in eik's latest patch) and it includes 
both PKGNAMEPREFIX *and* PKGNAMESUFFIX. IMHO, that's enough to solve
most (if not all) clash issues.

> A lot of ports use -client and -server as a PKGNAMESUFFIX, so it is not
> clear if it should be considered or not.

I believe there should be seperate option files in those case.
If you don't want them separate for some reason then ln(1) is your friend. ;)

> >I'm not sure what a sane default for OPTIONSFILE would but but it at
> >least has to be easily overridable which currently isn't given.
> Yep.

I vote for ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PKGBASE} (i.e. no additional directory level).
You can also change permissions on ${PORT_DBDIR} to allow OPTIONSFILE
creation by non-root user.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20040120/3de1a409/attachment-0001.bin

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list