OPTIONS and WITH/WITHOUT variables
itetcu at people.tecnik93.com
Tue Mar 21 15:08:45 UTC 2006
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:37:05 +0100
Benjamin Lutz <benlutz at datacomm.ch> wrote:
> Section 22.214.171.124, Syntax of the Porter's Handbook says:
> | OPTIONS definition must appear before the inclusion of bsd.port.pre.mk. The
> | WITH_* and WITHOUT_* variables can only be tested after the inclusion of
> | bsd.port.pre.mk. Due to a deficiency in the infrastructure, you can only
> | test WITH_* variables for options, which are OFF by default, and WITHOUT_*
> | variables for options, which defaults to ON.
> However I noticed that for variables that default to on, a WITH_* variable is
> defined. In fact the corresponding comment in bsd.port.mk does not mention
> WITHOUT_* at all. And looking at the actual OPTIONS parsing code in
> bsd.port.mk, starting at line 1135 of the current revision, I notice that it
> seems to be exactly the other way round than described in the Porter's
> Handbook (although I'm not sure I'm reading that correctly).
Yes, this is a stale information; ignore it, you can test for any
combination of WITH_* and WIHTOUT_*
IOnut - Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
"Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect"
Either one of us, by himself, is expendable. Both of us are not.
-- Kirk, "The Devil in the Dark", stardate 3196.1
More information about the freebsd-ports