Re: emulators/mame: Increasing option granularity woes

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 5:51 AM Alastair Hogge <agh@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The current in-tree port of mame, 0.261, is built around the core
> multi-emulation framework, which results in the usual mega monolithic
> mame binary. There are options for TOOLS, which include two other
> emulators. The current upstream release, 0.262 has enabled separation of
> mame from the rest of the project—TOOLS can now be built separately. I
> would like to reflect this in the Port, however, that means moving the
> two added emulators (LaserDisk player, and Netlist resolver) out of
> TOOLS (which I think the correct path to take). Considering the new
> upstream build pattern, I would like to configure the Port to option any
> of the emulators, and existing TOOLS. The problem I am facing, the three
> emulators require the same (or close to it) runtime config/resources,
> the assets are currently covered by the do-install target[1], how do I
> cover the assets in the Port, specifically in the pkg-plist to be
> conditioned on either of 3 potential emulator options? Should I add an
> option MAMEDATA?

You're almost right. Indeed there is no need in the user-visible
option, but you want all other machinery to kick in.
Basically, it boils down to

.if somecond
PLIST_SUB+=    MAMEDATA=
.else
PLIST_SUB+=    MAMEDATA="@comment "
.endif

where "somecond" defines if the files should be present in the
package. For OPTIONS (and when OPTIONS_SUB=yes is present [1]) it
happens automatically.

If you end up with "somecond" being in form "${PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO} ||
${PORT_OPTIONS:MBAR}" then you could simplify it even more

FOO_PLIST_SUB= MAMEDATA=
FOO_PLIST_SUB_OFF= MAMEDATA="@comment "
BAR_PLIST_SUB= MAMEDATA=
BAR_PLIST_SUB_OFF= MAMEDATA="@comment "


[1] https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/makefiles/#options_sub