On 2009-Nov-14 15:46:27 +0000, Thomas Sandford <freebsdu...@paradisegreen.co.uk> wrote: >Wesley Shields wrote: >> Sure, but it doesn't belong in bsd.*.mk. Turn it into a script and >> submit it as a regular port. > >If it were just one port and/or just a port maintainers tool I'd agree. >But this is something that affects MULTIPLE ports.
Based on your numbers, 15 ports - less that 0.1% of the ports tree. >Surely the whole value/purpose of the ports build infrastructure is to >present a consistent way of doing things rather than different >maintainers doing their own thing and solving problems in different, and >quite possibly sub-optimal ways and/or bloating multiple individual port >Makefiles with what could be kept in a single bsd.*.mk file. If it affected several hundred ports and/or was visible to the end user then this might be justification for embedding it into bsd.*.mk. The ports build infrastructure is already quite large (>20K LOC) and difficult to follow. The overheads associated with loading bsd.*.mk files also makes operations like "make index" very time-consuming. IMHO, bloating it further to marginally simplify life for the maintainers of ~15 ports is not a good tradeoff. Wesley's suggestion above sounds like the best solution. >And if the file were (say) bsd.vcs.mk and were pulled in only if one of > >USE_SVNFETCH >USE_CVSFETCH >USE_GITFETCH > >etc were defined then the impact of the bloat on other ports is minimal. If you still want to go this way, I'd suggest writing a stand-alone bsd.vcs.mk that can be .include'd by the port when it needs the functionality. -- Peter Jeremy
pgpEvU8kYZsOq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
