Re: BUILD_DEPENDS= RUN_DEPENDS=
On 05/14/2012 11:10 PM, b. f. wrote: Hi, I was trying to append to these in my /etc/make.conf and found that a large (thousands) number of ports are using = instead of +=, thus destroying any user-supplied depends. The use case for wanting to do this is to force devel/ccache to be a build dependency on all ports, for package building. Or to force in a particular library along with LDFLAGS into particular ports. This is achievable by modifying bsd.local.mk, but is not ideal. This goes along with updating all CLFAGS/LDFLAGS to use += instead of =. If there is no objection to this route, I will follow-up with a patch/PR to update the ports and handbook. Only those user-supplied depends that are added in makefiles included before those lines are parsed (like make.conf) can be affected. But there are a number of other makefiles that exist solely for customizations like you describe -- you mentioned one of them, bsd.local.mk. It is safer and more efficient to move as many of your customizations as possible out of make.conf, and into these other makefiles, as was intended. += was used for a few other variables because these few were often already defined in make.conf for other reasons -- but we are trying to discourage abuse of make.conf, so making a large number of unnecessary changes to make it possible for further additions to make.conf is a bad idea. b. Alright sounds good. I'll drop the endeavor and stick to bsd.local.mk. Thanks! Regards, Bryan Drewery ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
BUILD_DEPENDS= RUN_DEPENDS=
Hi, I was trying to append to these in my /etc/make.conf and found that a large (thousands) number of ports are using = instead of +=, thus destroying any user-supplied depends. The use case for wanting to do this is to force devel/ccache to be a build dependency on all ports, for package building. Or to force in a particular library along with LDFLAGS into particular ports. This is achievable by modifying bsd.local.mk, but is not ideal. This goes along with updating all CLFAGS/LDFLAGS to use += instead of =. If there is no objection to this route, I will follow-up with a patch/PR to update the ports and handbook. Regards, Bryan Drewery ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: BUILD_DEPENDS= RUN_DEPENDS=
On 05/14/2012 06:25 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote: On May 14, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote: I was trying to append to these in my /etc/make.conf and found that a large (thousands) number of ports are using = instead of +=, thus destroying any user-supplied depends. Yes. I think this may even be intentional on the part of the various port maintainers, but the notion of user-supplied additional dependencies is interesting. :-) Yes I have that concern as well. The risk may far outweigh the benefits here. The use case for wanting to do this is to force devel/ccache to be a build dependency on all ports, for package building. Or to force in a particular library along with LDFLAGS into particular ports. This is achievable by modifying bsd.local.mk, but is not ideal. Why do you need ccache added to the build dependencies to use it? Can't you just change CC/C++? For package building. I'm using a package building script that removes all packages before building the next, then only installs the build depends before building the next. Modifying CC is separate - need ccache installed first. Of course, I could update the package building tool to just install ccache first, which I will likely do anyway. It's just 1 example. Off the top of my head I can not think of other specific cases. Thanks for the input, Bryan Drewery ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: BUILD_DEPENDS= RUN_DEPENDS=
On May 14, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote: I was trying to append to these in my /etc/make.conf and found that a large (thousands) number of ports are using = instead of +=, thus destroying any user-supplied depends. Yes. I think this may even be intentional on the part of the various port maintainers, but the notion of user-supplied additional dependencies is interesting. :-) The use case for wanting to do this is to force devel/ccache to be a build dependency on all ports, for package building. Or to force in a particular library along with LDFLAGS into particular ports. This is achievable by modifying bsd.local.mk, but is not ideal. Why do you need ccache added to the build dependencies to use it? Can't you just change CC/C++? This goes along with updating all CLFAGS/LDFLAGS to use += instead of =. For most cases, sure, I would agree that CFLAGS/LDFLAGS should use +=. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: BUILD_DEPENDS= RUN_DEPENDS=
Hi, I was trying to append to these in my /etc/make.conf and found that a large (thousands) number of ports are using = instead of +=, thus destroying any user-supplied depends. The use case for wanting to do this is to force devel/ccache to be a build dependency on all ports, for package building. Or to force in a particular library along with LDFLAGS into particular ports. This is achievable by modifying bsd.local.mk, but is not ideal. This goes along with updating all CLFAGS/LDFLAGS to use += instead of =. If there is no objection to this route, I will follow-up with a patch/PR to update the ports and handbook. Only those user-supplied depends that are added in makefiles included before those lines are parsed (like make.conf) can be affected. But there are a number of other makefiles that exist solely for customizations like you describe -- you mentioned one of them, bsd.local.mk. It is safer and more efficient to move as many of your customizations as possible out of make.conf, and into these other makefiles, as was intended. += was used for a few other variables because these few were often already defined in make.conf for other reasons -- but we are trying to discourage abuse of make.conf, so making a large number of unnecessary changes to make it possible for further additions to make.conf is a bad idea. b. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
