OPTIONSFILE path [HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes]

[Joe Marcus Clarke]

On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 12:46, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 11:33, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> > 
> > [I think we're all on the same page at this point.]
> 
> Maybe I have to restate that I'm extremely happy that we finally have
> started ports option handling. 

Me, too.

> 
> No, I wanted to show that we have contradicting premises:
> 
> a.) the PKGNAMESUFFIX may be dependend on user settable options

I agree.  I was just making a point that there are ports (esp. for the
-client/-server case, where a slave port is used as the trigger).

> 
> b.) the set of saved options to choose may be dependant on the PKGNAMESUFFIX
>     (even though it might not be determined by user settable options)
> 
> This means that in case a) we can't use the PKGNAMESUFFIX to determine the
> set of saved options, and if we can't do this we have to work around this
> for case b.), e.g. set LATEST_LINK or UNIQUENAME for *every* port that
> has options depending on the PKGNAMESUFFIX.
> 
> This is more dangerous as it seems: If one port doesn't use OPTIONS and has
> a portname of apache, it will nevertheless get the options from
> /var/db/ports/apache/options.
> 
> Say for example you do a test installation of apache2 (which we assume support
> OPTIONS) and decide to downgrade to apache13 (which we assume doesn't support
> OPTIONS), then the file /var/db/ports/apache/options is sourced nevertheless,
> and you get all saved options from apache2 for apache13. There is no 'Hey, I'm
> OPTIONS-aware and want saved options, and I am willing to care for a unique name',
> you get the options when a 'suitable' file is found.
> 
> Did you expect that?

Yes, I counted on it :-).  Just kidding, yes this is a problem...but, it
can be solved if the porter adjusts UNIQUENAME accordingly.  However,
I'm not arguing with you: we need a better way.  I'm just offering a
workaround with what we have in the ports tree _now_.  And, as you say
below, adjusting UNIQUENAME is akin to having to add CONFLICTS.  Please
send-pr your patch when it's ready.  Thanks.

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/20040121/c8b94b28/attachment.bin