proper use of bsd.port.options.mk
dougb at FreeBSD.org
Mon May 16 17:23:44 UTC 2011
On 5/16/2011 3:23 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 16 May 2011 05:18, Warren Block<wblock at wonkity.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 May 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> I'm confused (yeah, I know, nothing new about that). From
>>> # usage:
>>> # .include "bsd.port.options.mk"
>>> #<deal with user options>
>>> # .include "bsd.port.pre.mk"
>>> #<other work, including adjusting dependencies>
>>> # .include "bsd.port.post.mk"
>>> However the ports I've looked at so far all do:
>>> OPTIONS= blah
>>> I assume that this method works, since it seems like so many ports use it.
>>> Should the notes in options.mk be updated?
>> Yes, it should be updated. See examples "5.8 Simple use of OPTIONS" and
>> "5.9 Old style use of OPTIONS" in the Porter's Handbook:
> No, because stuff is done in pre.mk which is not done in OPTIONS;
> handling dependencies such as USE_BZIP2 or USE_JAVA for example.
> After options processing, pre.mk is only needed if you need to do the
> above, which is why it's missed out on most ports.
> The Handbook part refers to 'SIMPLE' use of OPTIONS, so perhaps should
> have a 'complex' use of options as well...
Can you give an example of a port that needs this? I didn't find any
examples of ports doing it the "complex" way, but my search wasn't
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
More information about the freebsd-ports