Makefile correction?

Aaron Myles Landwehr aaron at
Sat Jan 8 19:00:59 PST 2005

Sean wrote:

> Thanks Aaron,
> That did the trick.
> Questions however.
> The DISTFILES= statement you added is obviously different from the 
> DISTFILES+= in the (WITH_OPENING_BOOK) section.
> Does the + symbol just mean in addition to the main file?

Welcome Sean,

I believe the '=+' symbol means an addition to the current distfiles. If 
there are multiple files than all of the distfiles need to be 
specified(including the main one). When WITH_OPENING_BOOKS is defined 
that makes multiple distfiles, because of the specific package required 
by opening books.

> I am guessing if I am correct in the + comment above that an 
> 'EXTRACT_ONLY" statement is not needed because it is an additional 
> file to the main?

The statement is needed, because EXTRACT_ONLY is telling 'make' to only 
attempt to extract the specified files. The second distfile isn't 
suppose to be unzipped; which, brings me to a certain realization that 
the EXTRACT_ONLY statement should be in the WITH_OPENING_BOOKS section; 
as it is only relevant when there are mulitple distfiles.

I did a bit more research and realized my modification does not pass 
through 'portlint' without warnings; as the DISTFILES statement should 
not be used when only one distfile is needed(this occurs when 
WITH_OPENING_BOOKS is not used). I came up with a solution that passes 
through 'portlint' with flying colors. Just add:
to the WITH_OPENING_BOOKS section. I'll send this to the maintainer as well.

> Looking at another Makefile, the gcompris2 one to be exact, I do not see
> an EXTRACT_ONLY line. I looked at two others and they also do not have 
> an EXTRACT_ONLY line.
> This statement is only needed in certain circumstances, or there is 
> more then one way to do the same thing?

You are correct, the statement is only needed if one or more distfiles 
does not need to be unzipped.
-Aaron Myles Landwehr

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list