* On 2003-12-30 at 18:16 GMT, Daniel Eggert 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..."
> 
> > 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.

Something I keep on meaning to implement but never get around to it
is e.g:

	USE_SSL+=	mail/teapop chat/irssi

style variables for mk.conf which should cover the above cases.  I
don't really like the way bsd.pkg.defaults.mk is currently quite
ad-hoc - it'd be great to present the user with a heavily reduced
set of USE_FEATURE+= knobs which they can turn on for specific
packages, and which would clean up our Makefiles considerably
(taking the SSL as an example, it would alone remove 8 individual
<PKG>_USE_SSL variables, which are by no means the only ones which
*could* have such a variable.)

No code yet though, so comments would be great so that we can get
this stuff standardised.

-- 
Jonathan Perkin                         <jonathan@perkin.org.uk>
BBC Internet Services         http://www.perkin.org.uk/jonathan/