HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes

[Oliver Eikemeier]

Sergei Kolobov wrote:

> 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.

I agree, the name is confusing. But most ports strive to keep LATEST_LINK
unique, which is not the case for PKGBASE, and otherwise we have just another
variable to take care of.

LATEST_LINK was designed to be independend of the version number and make all
packages coexist in one directory, despite overlapping PORTNAMEs or PKGBASEs,
so it is exactly what we want. What we don't want if the name 'LATEST_LINK',
I agree to that. UNIQUENAME would have been more versatile, but nobody though
of that as this variable was introduced.

>>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.
> 
> Sergei