Subject: Re: USE_SASL is too general?
To: Daniel Eggert <>
From: Adam C. Migus <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 12/29/2003 18:08:21
On Monday 29 December 2003 05:43 pm, Daniel Eggert wrote:
> Hi all,
> The USE_SASL variable is very general. If one puts
> into mk.conf all packages will be built with sasl. Wouldn't it be
> better to use
> etc. ?
> This would give much more flexibility.
> I'm in a situation where I want to build databases/openldap without
> SASL, but want to build mail/postfix _with_ SASL. If I do a
>     make update
> somewhere things may break. Or am I missing something?
> /Daniel

My apologies for not readily offering a solution but your post gave me 
an idea for this type situation.  Wouldn't it be neat if you could say:

.if (I'm building databases)

My thinking is doing it this way would offer more flexibility as you 
point out but cut down on the number of _USE_ variables that would need 
to be defined.

If there was a ${PKGNAME_NOVER} being ${PKGNAME} without the version 
information one could say something like:

.if (${PKGNAME_NOVER} == "openldap")

A well written `sed' call could define that variable.  Or perhaps 
something more intelligent with names and categories could be 
implemented to make it even more functional.