HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes

[Joe Marcus Clarke]

On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 12:42, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 12:13, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> > 
> >>On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:45:47AM -0500, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 08:12, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> >>
> >>[snipped description of options patches. -EE]
> >>
> >>>>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 ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}/something,
> >>>>or we may use LATEST_LINK instead of PORTNAME:
> >>>
> >>>What's the general consensus on this (is there one)?  What about ports
> >>>that set NO_LATEST_LINK?  In any event, the patch below would need to be
> >>>tested on bento again (uggghh).  Since OPTIONSFILE is currently
> >>>overrideable, couldn't porters that have conflicting PORTNAMEs, set this
> >>>file to a unique name.  For example:
> >>>
> >>>OPTIONSFILE=	${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}/options.mozilla-devel
> >>>
> >>>Wouldn't that satisfy most people?
> >>>Perhaps we could shorten the public
> >>>OPTIONSFILE to just specify the filename, and do all the grunt work in
> >>>bsd.port.mk...?
> >>
> >>The following implements that, and is a fairly trivial patch.
> >>It might be even better to call "OPTIONSNAME" something like
> >>"UNIQUENAME".
> > 
> > This looks okay to me, a gives the power to the porter to decide on a
> > truly unique name for options.
> > 
> >>There is no obvious consensus - I have no particular opinion beyond
> >>what I've already said (ie, that the name of LATEST_LINK seems inappropriate
> >>if it is to be used as a unique name.)
> > 
> > I agree.  This approach seems the most flexible.  As for not being able
> > to do non-root installs, this is a bogus argument as one could simply
> > override PORT_DBDIR as they would PKG_DBDIR (even with the original
> > patch).
> > 
> > Could you also change the comment documentation to reflect the new
> > macros?  Unless there are serious objections to this, I'll commit this
> > approach.
> > 
> > Joe
> > 
> > 
> >>Index: bsd.port.mk
> >>===================================================================
> >>RCS file: /home/pcvs/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk,v
> >>retrieving revision 1.475
> >>diff -u -r1.475 bsd.port.mk
> >>--- bsd.port.mk	20 Jan 2004 09:14:09 -0000	1.475
> >>+++ bsd.port.mk	20 Jan 2004 17:07:33 -0000
> >>@@ -1017,7 +1034,8 @@
> >> # where 'make config' records user configuration options
> >> PORT_DBDIR?=	/var/db/ports
> >> 
> >>-OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}/options
> >>+OPTIONSNAME?=${PORTNAME}
> >>+OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${OPTIONSNAME}/options
> 
> Can we at least have
> 
> OPTIONSNAME?=${PKGNAMEPREFIX}${PORTNAME}
> 
> here? It makes sense for all the localized ports, perl, ruby, python, linux
> and others.

That makes sense...maybe having the whole trifecta is a good idea, too:
${PKGNAMEPREFIX}${PORTNAME}${PKGNAMESUFFIX}

And what about UNIQUENAME instead of OPTIONSNAME?  This way, it could be
used for other purposes.

Joe

-- 
Joe Marcus Clarke
FreeBSD GNOME Team	::	marcus at FreeBSD.org
gnome at FreeBSD.org
FreeNode / #freebsd-gnome
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20040120/e63adbeb/attachment.bin