proper use of bsd.port.options.mk

[Doug Barton]

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
>>> ports/Mk/bsd.port.options.mk:
>>>
>>> # 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
>>>
>>> .include<bsd.port.options.mk>
>>>
>>> blah
>>>
>>> .include<bsd.port.mk>
>>> EOF
>>>
>>> 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:
>>
>> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-options.html
>
> 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 
exhaustive.


Doug

-- 

	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/