# SBCL skipping graphviz



## longtick (Apr 3, 2013)

When I build Steel Bank Common Lisp I disable all documentation (PDF and PS) but Graphviz is still built; I found http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-bugs/2011-July/214626.html which seems to imply it's unneeded if documentation is not to be built; this seems to be a solved issue but I don't know how to set NOPORTDOCS so the build system picks it up. I have read ports() and I'm not sure I understand everything but if I try `$ env NOPORTDOCS make` or `$ env WITH_NOPORTDOCS make` it doesn't seem to notice what I want (Graphviz configuration shows up). Looking at /usr/ports/lang/sbcl/Makefile I can add a menu option to the variable OPTIONS like this


```
OPTIONS=        SBCL "Use installed SBCL binary if available" off \
                THREADS "Enable experimental threading support" off \
                NOPORTDOCS "Do not... something" on \
                PDF "Build PDF documentation" on \
                PS "Build PostScript documentation" off
```

and disable PDF documentation and leave NOPORTDOCS enabled, Graphviz configuration still shows up (I assume this means it's going to build it). I don't know what to do to skip it. Maybe I haven't read enough on ports and if so I apologize but apart from looking at the Makefile and at ports() I don't know what else to do.


----------



## wblock@ (Apr 4, 2013)

Adding the option does nothing unless there is code testing for that option.

The $ prompt does not make it clear how you are trying to build ports.  Are you logged in as root with su(1)?  What is root's shell?


----------



## longtick (Apr 4, 2013)

Sorry about the improper formatting. I was logged in as root and the shell was bash (running on top of sh).

I know just adding the option would do nothing but there is code taking care of it. I haven't gone through the logic, maybe I should, but dismissing the possibility of a bug I was asking for the proper way to make the ports system aware of this variable when building.



			
				wblock@ said:
			
		

> Adding the option does nothing unless there is code testing for that option.
> 
> The $ prompt does not make it clear how you are trying to build ports.  Are you logged in as root with su(1)?  What is root's shell?


----------

