On Thursday January 26 2017 12:56:51 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > I don't think anyone's ever suggested before that include files would be > beneficial for portfile development, except for portgroups which are already > handled.
PortGroups are exactly that (IMHO), include files, and they're very useful, but accessible to each and every port wishing to use them. To stick with the ffmpeg-VLC example: it started as a complete copy of the 2.8.6 port:ffmpeg. Even trimmed down it's still taking up a lot of place inside VLC's Portfile, yet is still supposed to be a subport of and for the private use of VLC. It would be a lot cleaner if it could be kept completely in a separate file in the same port directory. On Thursday January 26 2017 13:59:36 Brandon Allbery wrote: > It got tossed around on IRC around a year and a half ago; the conclusion > was that it was a lot of complication for very little gain. A lot more complicated than a procedure copied from (and probably simpler than) proc PortGroup plus some additional lines in portinstall.tcl? Re: separate files in the same port directory: I guess this kind of feature could also be obtained by considering Portfile plus Portfile.* in a port directory. It wouldn't surprise me if that were actually somewhat more straightforward to implement, too. R
