Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

Mk/bsd.options.mk: Skip option helpers for excluded options
Needs ReviewPublic

Authored by jrm on Apr 24 2024, 6:54 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jul 20, 8:39 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Jul 3, 10:10 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jun 7 2024, 4:07 AM
Unknown Object (File)
May 8 2024, 1:35 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Apr 27 2024, 6:50 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Apr 26 2024, 11:35 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Apr 26 2024, 11:32 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Apr 26 2024, 11:26 AM
Subscribers

Details

Reviewers
None
Group Reviewers
portmgr
Summary

Consider the following example. Some port option, FOO, does not make
sense with some flavor because the feature behind FOO should always be
enabled when the flavor is chosen. Before this change, when the port's
Makefile included, e.g., FOO_CONFIGURE_WITH=foo, even though FOO was
excluded, --without-foo would be added to CONFIGURE_ARGS. With this
change, do not process option helpers for such an option.

Test Plan

Will ask for a exp-run.

Diff Detail

Repository
R11 FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
No Lint Coverage
Unit
No Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 57328
Build 54216: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

jrm requested review of this revision.Apr 24 2024, 6:54 PM
jrm created this revision.

Adding some IRC discussion here.

<bapt> in your flavor the option should not even exist for a start
<bapt> so your should not need D44929

<jrm> bapt: If there are, say, 4 flavors, it makes more sense (to me) to exclude those options from that one flavor rather than adding them to the three other flavors.
<jrm> bapt: But [in any case], it seems better not to mess with option helpers for excluded options, no?

Let's say the option FOO does not make sense on some *arch*, so we exclude it. Should we still add things such as --without-foo to CONFIGURE_ARGS because the port contains FOO_CONFIGURE_WITH=foo?