In D44487#1014651, @mat wrote:

but we want users to stop using ports and use packages

Excuse me for intervention with off topic, but this is extremely important to note, so please don't. The sole reason I use FreeBSD (I'm pretty sure not only me) is easy customization, including customization via ports framework.
However, it may be possible to consider packages after they will be built with:

1. Every possible OPTIONS combination.
2. Every possible -march.
3. Every possible optimization level and every possible combination of (at least) most widely used CFLAGS.
4. With each possible DEFAULT_VERSIONS value.
5. With any of local patches per user's request.

6..n. Each and every possible <name it>
But honestly, I don't think this can be realistically done.

In D44981#1025501, @diizzy wrote:

Do we still need to use the bundled version of HTTPLIB? https://github.com/equeim/tremotesf2/tree/2.6.2/src/3rdparty matches what we already have in ports, https://www.freshports.org/www/cpp-httplib/

Unfortunately, yes, we still need it. httplib 0.15 and above is broken on FreeBSD 13 due to old OpenSSL 1.

This is especially important after https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=273514.

Could you please suggest Makefile line number for devel/git? I don't see that.

https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/devel/git/Makefile#n86

In D41975#957656, @andrew_tao173.riddles.org.uk wrote:

In D41975#957578, @vsasjason_gmail.com wrote:

So, initial thoughts on rework:

After carefully reading bsd.options.mk I came to following coclusions (but I may be wrong):

1. OPTIONS_FILE being crafted from <category>/<portname>, which means we can't really define any options inside flavors, but in root of Makefile only (to prevent overwriting OPTIONS_FILE by different flavors.

Take a look at devel/git or mail/postfix which override OPTIONS_FILE to allow different options for flavors.

So, initial thoughts on rework:

Unfortunately, diff isn't finished yet. Following removal from $4 an appropriate entry to $3 should be added as well.