mail/alpine new Makefile

[Kubilay Kocak]

On 6/9/17 9:26 PM, Marco Beishuizen wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, the wise Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> 
>> On 6/9/17 7:41 PM, Marco Beishuizen wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marco,
>>
>> I believe the reason is:
>>
>>> .include <bsd.port.options.mk>
>>
>> The port includes this ^^^^ ... AND
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> .include <bsd.port.pre.mk>
>>
>> This ---------^^^^^
>>
>> Use one or the other, or neither if its *all* options helpers, but not
>> both. See:
>>
>> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/book.html
>>
>>
>> The paragraph just above the "Example 5.28. Simple Use of OPTIONS"
> 
> Thanks Kubilay. I've removed the ".include <bsd.port.pre.mk" line and
> changed the ".include <bsd.port.post.mk>" line at the end to ".include
> <bsd.port.mk>". It still builds and installs but the options that are
> set are still not built in.

I think I had a brainfail, and I believe it is in-fact fine to use both
(if necessary) and the wording of the handbook might need to be tweaked
not to imply it.

That aside, I can't see use (testing) of PORT_OPTIONS:M<OPT> or other
variables that pre/post.mk inclusion is needed for, so neither
bsd.port.options nor bsd.{pre,post}.mk appears to be necessary.

That wouldn't seem to be the issue (though I could be wrong).

Q: Does enabling/disabling OPTIONS change/add/remove CONFIGURE_ARGS for
example? (make -V CONFIGURE_ARGS)
Q: Is the make config dialog presenting OPTIONS correctly?
Q: Once OPTIONS are saved, does /var/db/ports/category_portname/options
accurately reflect the state changes?
Q: Does make -V PORT_OPTIONS show/contain enabled options?

./koobs