Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

science/paraview: Fix protobuf conflict, upgrade to 5.5.1, modernize options
ClosedPublic

Authored by jwb on Jun 26 2018, 7:05 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Mar 22, 8:17 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mar 9 2024, 2:43 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Feb 12 2024, 7:49 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Feb 12 2024, 7:48 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Feb 12 2024, 7:48 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Feb 12 2024, 7:48 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Feb 11 2024, 11:19 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 30 2024, 12:15 AM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

science/paraview: Fix protobuf conflict, upgrade to 5.5.1, modernize options
Approved by jrm (mentor) or wen (mentor)
Differential to be added to commit message

Test Plan

portlint -AC: looks fine
Tested port options
Passed poudriere on {10.4,11.1}-{amd64,i386}

Diff Detail

Repository
rP FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

science/paraview/Makefile
69 ↗(On Diff #44484)

Can this line be removed now?

Apparently so. Never would have thought of it. The handbook is vague about
this, but it seems to work fine. I ran a make clean rmconfig configure
with 3 different options combos and got expected results.

I think you needed the .include before you switched to OPTION helpers.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jun 26 2018, 11:43 PM

Yeah, I got that, but now I'm uncertain about exactly which OPTIONS features require it. The handbook isn't clear and the mk file is too big to study in detail. I'll just try without it and add when needed, I guess.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
In D16024#339403, @jwb wrote:

Yeah, I got that, but now I'm uncertain about exactly which OPTIONS features require it. The handbook isn't clear and the mk file is too big to study in detail. I'll just try without it and add when needed, I guess.

Regarding options, you only need to include bsd.port.options.mk when you need to use the PORT_OPTIONS variable.