bsd.port.options.mk status

[Andrew Pantyukhin]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 01:18:31PM +0100, Shaun Amott wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 02:00:14AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> > 
> > So am I missing something or is it as trivial as using these four
> > lines instead of one:
> > 
> > USEOPTIONSMK=	yes
> > INOPTIONSMK=	yes
> > .include "bsd.port.mk"
> > .undef INOPTIONSMK
> 
> This is even uglier than our existing work-around solutions. :-)

You snipped the question I was trying to answer, which was "is it
possible?" Now IMHO the current way of handling options is ugly
as a whole. We're trying to use paradigms from other languages in
make. A make solution would look more like this:
 SOMELIST=	FOO BAR BAZ
 WITH_FOO_CONFIGURE_ARGS=	--with-foo
 WITHOUT_BAZ_PLIST_SUB+=	BAZ="@comment "
other BSD's have used this approach for some time now and it
looks a lot cleaner than all the hacks we have, at least to my
eyes. The reason I'm not rallying for cosmetics like that is that 
I fail to see make(1) as a future-proof base for ports.