> > > > I'm finding it especially "interesting" that /etc/make.conf, > > > > which to judge from its location is part of the base, depends > > > > on a setting from something in the /usr/ports tree. > > > > > > Well, actually it doesn't. What gives you this impression? > > > > Paul Schmehl reported where LOCALBASE is set: > > in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk > > > > Now I'm being told to add this: > > > > X11BASE=${LOCALBASE} > > > > to /etc/make.conf, so that /etc/make.conf needs LOCALBASE to be > > set in order to set X11BASE correctly. Is that not a dependency? > > You assume make(1)'s variable assignment is done on encounter base > at runtime. It isn't: > > # echo LOCALBASE=/usr/local >/tmp/foo.mk > > # echo 'X11BASE=${LOCALBASE}' >>/etc/make.conf > > # make -f /tmp/foo.mk -V X11BASE > /usr/local > > # echo LOCALBASE=/tmp >/tmp/foo.mk > > # make -f /tmp/foo.mk -V X11BASE > /tmp > > For your academic interest: > gzcat /usr/share/doc/psd/12.make/paper.ascii.gz|$PAGER
I know perfectly well how make works. The point is, if we have X11BASE=${LOCALBASE} in /etc/make.conf, X11BASE is going to be set *correctly* during any particular execution of make only if LOCALBASE is set somewhere in the makefiles that are processed during that execution of make. If we run make under conditions that *don't* involve processing /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk -- such as when building something that isn't a port -- X11BASE is going to be *wrong* (unless a definition gets provided somewhere else, as in your examples). IOW adding this line to /etc/make.conf creates a dependency on /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk, and that seems undesirable. Would it not be better to put it somewhere under /usr/ports/Mk or /usr/local/etc, rather than polluting the base with a ports-ism? _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"