On 17 December 2011 18:53, Jan Beich <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris Rees <[email protected]> writes: > >>> Chris Rees <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>>> as seen here: >>>>> http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=295602+0+/usr/local/www/db/text/2011/cvs-all/20111113.cvs-all >>>> >>>> I don't like the proposed solution; it's less hackish to just use >>>> gmake again; most people have it installed anyway.... >>> >>> A non-hackish solution would involve fixing sys.mk to guard against >>> recursive inclusion of __MAKE_CONF. bsd.port.mk is known to have >>> this when using make(1) for do-build. >>> >>> Not that I mind shoving the issue under the carpet by using gmake. > [...] >> >> Ah now there is a better solution :) > > It breaks non ports builds if the guard is propagated via .MAKEFLAGS. > And one no longer can .if/.ifdef (in make.conf) innards of ports. > >> >> I'll see if we can get it in the tree. > > Nevermind, in case of lang/lua > > 1/ sys.mk sets CFLAGS= from make.conf > 2/ Makefile adds -fPIC to CFLAGS > 3/ bsd.port.mk copies CFLAGS to MAKE_ENV > 4/ sys.mk sets CFLAGS from make.conf again, > `=' overrides CFLAGS from environment > > A simple make(1) build doesn't export CFLAGS > > # Makefile > all: > @cd foo && $(MAKE) > @cd foo && CFLAGS='$(CFLAGS)' $(MAKE) > > # foo/Makefile > all: > @echo $(CFLAGS)
So... can be worked around with using ?= in make.conf? If that's the case then no code needs changing :) Chris _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
