On 2014-11-10, Joseph Mingrone <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm porting a program that uses a simple GNU make file, but I'm thinking
> about replacing the make file to remove the devel/gmake dependency. I
> don't foresee many upstream changes that will make this an issue. Is
> this a bad/good idea?
Probably not worth it.
If upstream intended to provide a portable Makefile but inadvertently
included gmake-isms, you can create a patch to fix this and submit
it back upstream.
> Are there any example ports that do this? My
> searching didn't turn any up.
Potential candidates are ports that come with Makefile* in their
files/ directory.
> CFLAGS = -D_POSIX_SOURCE -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200809L -D_THREAD_SAFE
> -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 -pedantic -std=c11 -Wall
> INC = -I/usr/local/include
> LDFLAGS = -L/usr/local/lib
> LDLIBS = -lX11
>
> .ifmake debug
> CFLAGS += -DDEBUG -g -O0
> .else
> CFLAGS += -DNDEBUG -O3
> .endif
Do you intend to override CFLAGS again from the ports Makefile?
A port should respect the system CFLAGS that are passed in. It
obviously can add -DBLA, but it must not clobber optimization setting
with its own -Ox. Similarly, it shouldn't hardcode /usr/local but
use ${LOCALBASE}.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [email protected]
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
