Subject: Re: USE_SASL is too general?
To: Adam C. Migus <>
From: Daniel Eggert <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 12/30/2003 19:12:44
> On Monday 29 December 2003 06:10 pm, grant beattie wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 06:08:21PM -0500, Adam C. Migus wrote:


> So then why do the variables _need_ to be per-package?  I actually like
> being able to say USE_{SOMETHING} and know it means "if a package has
> support for {SOMETHING} I want to compile it in..."

One good example: I have mail/postfix, security/sasl and databases/openldap.
I need to compile postfix with sasl and openldap support and I need sasl
with openldap support. This doesn't work if openldap is compiled with sasl
support as it will create a circular dependency and everything wil break
once I try to 'make update'.

> How difficult would it be to offer the decision making logic behind some
> kind of construct to allow simple inclusion or exclusion lists in
> mk.conf?

Well, a simple thing would be to use _USE_ variables (such as
POSTFIX_USE_SASL) instead of general USE_ (e.g. USE_SASL), but this would of
course create a vast amount of _USE_ variables.