On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 01:18:31PM +0100, Shaun Amott wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 02:00:14AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > > > So am I missing something or is it as trivial as using these four > > lines instead of one: > > > > USEOPTIONSMK= yes > > INOPTIONSMK= yes > > .include "bsd.port.mk" > > .undef INOPTIONSMK > > This is even uglier than our existing work-around solutions. :-)
You snipped the question I was trying to answer, which was "is it possible?" Now IMHO the current way of handling options is ugly as a whole. We're trying to use paradigms from other languages in make. A make solution would look more like this: SOMELIST= FOO BAR BAZ WITH_FOO_CONFIGURE_ARGS= --with-foo WITHOUT_BAZ_PLIST_SUB+= BAZ="@comment " other BSD's have used this approach for some time now and it looks a lot cleaner than all the hacks we have, at least to my eyes. The reason I'm not rallying for cosmetics like that is that I fail to see make(1) as a future-proof base for ports. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"