bsd.port.options.mk status

[Dmitry Marakasov]

* Andrew Pantyukhin (infofarmer at FreeBSD.org) 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
That seems a very bad solution for me.
We'll have to introduce tons of WITH_{$FOO}_* variables, and we still
won't support all ways .if defined(WITH_*) are used now. Just try:

find /usr/ports -name Makefile | xargs -n100 cat | sed -n -e '/^\.if.*WITH_/,/^\.endif/ p'

.if's are far more flexible. And for my eyes, if's look cleaner.

> 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.
That is unfortunately true.

-- 
Best regards,
  Dmitry Marakasov               mailto:amdmi3 at amdmi3.ru