Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:15:41 +0300 (EEST) From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail-in.net> To: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: pkg-comment && pkg-descr && distinfo Message-ID: <200106072015.f57KFeo22253@mail.uic-in.net> In-Reply-To: <3B1FC2A7.BAE849FE@DougBarton.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 11:06:31 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Will Andrews wrote: > > > > So Doug, > > > > Are you going to take my offer? > > Yeah, sorry, I forgot to respond to your e-mail. I'm hoping to work this > up on the weekend. > > Do the script to automagically > > calculate all MD5 checksums and put it in the Makefile > > flawlessly (probably needs a manual override, of course), and > > I will do all the patchwork (some will be involved) and Makefile > > updates in the ENTIRE ports tree to adjust for the changes. > > > > I'm serious. Hey folks, please hold on. There was absolutely no discussion about moving distinfo into makefiles and frankly speaking I do not see much point in doing that. Yes, this will save some amount of inodes, but it is hardly a good argument. For example that would break many port-related tools out there and could make some things harder in the future. For example people could start using make(1) variables in the various parts of distinfo, so you will be unable to parse distinfo w/o using make(1), which will make it a *very* expensive operation, so things like distclean will take forever to complete. Please start discussion by providing your arguments explaining why we should move into that direction, not from the technical possibility of the move itself. -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200106072015.f57KFeo22253>