On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 11:00 PM Mel Pilgrim <list_free...@bluerosetech.com> wrote: > > On 2019-06-08 9:57, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 10:02 AM Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote: > >> > >> In https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237688 we had > >> a user report against lang/gcc* ports that could be traced back to > >> a certain functionality (option) in another port (devel/binutils) > >> missing. > >> > >> In pseudo-code this could be addressed as follows in lang/gcc* > >> > >> .if $(binutils built statically) > >> IGNORE= GCC requires dynamically linked binutils > >> .endif > >> > >> Now the question is: How to implement something like this practically? > > > > What you have there won't work, because `make index` won't work, plus > > Makefiles shouldn't be doing external calls if they don't have to. > > You'll also have a problem whereby LOCALBASE isn't defined yet, and I > > don't believe that IGNORE after bsd.port.pre.mk will work (I could be > > wrong about that). > > > > You have two options: > > 1) Turn it into a pre-configure, which is slightly ugly for the > > end-user but still gets the job done > > pre-configure: > > if some file in binutils is static; then echo "NOPE"; exit 1; fi > > > > 2) (The correct way to do it) Create a binutils-static slave port, > > remove the static option from binutils proper, and depend specifically > > on the non-static port. > > Why is a slave port the correct option here instead of flavouring binutils?
No, you're absolutely right. Flavours is the right way to do it now. I keep forgetting about them, because I don't in any way understand how to use them. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"