Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 21:51:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: review request: INSTALL_* aliases in bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960812214028.3577B-100000@carrier.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <199608121005.DAA02891@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Satoshi Asami wrote:
> I noticed that there are a lot of cp commands in the *-install targets
> in ports' Makefiles. What do you guys think about adding these to
> bsd.port.mk so that we can just say
>
> do-install:
> ${INSTALL_PROGRAM} ${WRKSRC}/coolprog ${PREFIX}/bin
> ${INSTALL_MAN} ${WRKSRC}/coolprog.1 ${PREFIX}/man/man1
> .if !defined(NOMANCOMPRESS)
> :
>
> instead of the long-but-correct alternatives, and, um, the bazillion
> may-be-short-but-incorrect alternatives?
>
> Note that this is only for toplevel Makefiles, and won't affect
> anything in the software's own Makefiles.
>
> Satoshi
> -------
> Index: bsd.port.mk
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /usr/cvs/src/share/mk/bsd.port.mk,v
> retrieving revision 1.218
> diff -u -r1.218 bsd.port.mk
> --- bsd.port.mk 1996/08/07 08:25:08 1.218
> +++ bsd.port.mk 1996/08/12 09:37:37
> @@ -316,6 +316,16 @@
> NO_MTREE= yes
> .endif
>
> +# A few aliases for *-install targets
> +INSTALL_PROGRAM= \
> + ${INSTALL} ${COPY} ${STRIP} -o ${BINOWN} -g ${BINGRP} -m ${BINMODE}
> +INSTALL_SCRIPT= \
> + ${INSTALL} ${COPY} -o ${BINOWN} -g ${BINGRP} -m ${BINMODE}
> +INSTALL_DATA= \
> + ${INSTALL} ${COPY} -o ${SHAREOWN} -g ${SHAREGRP} -m ${SHAREMODE}
> +INSTALL_MAN= \
> + ${INSTALL} ${COPY} -o ${MANOWN} -g ${MANGRP} -m ${MANMODE}
> +
> # The user can override the NO_PACKAGE by specifying this from
> # the make command line
> .if defined(FORCE_PACKAGE)
These would take effect based only on what the user had in his
/etc/make.conf, right? From what I see, since bsd.port.mk is subsidiary
only to the ports Makefile and /etc/make.conf, when making a port, if the
user didn't have these set, it would make installation fail (the null
values in the install command would kill it). I think the idea is great,
but I would supply some default values for BINOWN, etc, so things wouldn't
just begin to fail for everyone. I think it's either that, or every port
would need to be retrofitted with those values in the individual make
files.
I don't see any reason why I wouldn't be willing to accept something like
BINOWN=? 555
That I could easily override in my own make.conf, or in the ports
Makefile. It would provide direction for those folks that aren't too sure
of security/installation matters, without preventing others from doing
whatever they wished. It would stop sloppy ports from messing up too
badly, too, and provide a better example for new porters to work with.
As long as these aren't exported to the sources, they have no effect on
the Makefiles in the port's sources (as you pointed out).
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data
chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix.
9120 Edmonston Ct #302 |
Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and n3lxx, both FreeBSD
(301) 220-2114 | version 2.2 current -- and great FUN!
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.95.960812214028.3577B-100000>