14.02.2013 08:02, Tom Evans написав(ла):
> I think src.conf is meant only to be included when building src. For
> example, bsd.port.mk sets _WITHOUT_SRCCONF before including bsd.own.mk
> (which is the makefile that includes src.conf). It's done this since
> src.conf was added in 2006, so evidently ports are, by design, not
> supposed to include src.conf.
Awesome. All that's missing then, is for _WITHOUT_SRCCONF to be
automatically added to MAKE_ENV...
>>> I would consider them broken!
>> On the contrary. I wish, more ports were using the system's bsd.*.mk
>> collection -- instead of the godawful autoconf, for example.
> Er? What port uses autoconf for driving the building the port? A lot
> of ports have build systems that use autoconf, but determining how to
> build is always driven by *.mk.
>
> I don't think part of porting to FreeBSD should be rewriting how the
> package builds itself.
Hundreds of ports rely on auto-something bundled with the vendor's
sources, that's what I meant. As for how to build a particular package,
that's up to the port-maintainer.
> Either the documentation is wrong, and should be changed, or this
> singular port is not behaving as it should.
I may sound defensive here, but I'll still repeat, that "this singular
port" (and I do, in fact, have other ones like it) started using
bsd.lib.mk 5 years before src.conf (and its man-page) was added to the tree.
-mi
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
