Opened 8 years ago

Closed 8 years ago

Last modified 8 years ago

#53284 closed defect (invalid)

shouldn't pre-configure be skipped when `use_configure no`?

Reported by: RJVB (René Bertin) Owned by:
Priority: Normal Milestone:
Component: base Version:
Keywords: Cc:
Port:

Description

It's all in the title: shouldn't pre-configure (and post-configure) blocks be skipped when use_configure no? They should be irrelevant, and could cause undesirable side-effects.

It may sound surprising that you'd run into the question. In practice it is in fact perfectly possible when a Portfile has one or more stub subports, either because the file provides a pre-configure itself for the main port (subports), or because a PortGroup does (e.g. the qmake5 and cmake-1.1 PGs).

Change History (2)

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)

Resolution: invalid
Status: newclosed

No, it shouldn't. That setting doesn't mean the configure phase disappears, it means it won't run ./configure (or whatever configure.cmd). You could still be using an alternate configuration system like xmkmf.

comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by RJVB (René Bertin)

I see you point, but is it really valid? Shouldn't alternative configuration systems ideally redefine configure.cmd and provide their own configure if they have to? The way I interpret use_configure no is that it turns off the configuration step altogether because it's unneeded or unwanted, for projects that come with a preexisting Makefile, use xcodebuild or don't build anything.

It's been ages since I used xmkmf but IIRC it stands for "X Make Makefile" and is/was a precursor to autoconf and cmake etc. So you'd do

> xmkmf
> make

Is the autoreconf setting respected when you set use_configure no?

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.