Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:48:18 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> To: Thomas Sandford <freebsduser@paradisegreen.co.uk> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: svn for make fetch Message-ID: <20091115204818.GA57571@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <4AFED0D3.2050403@paradisegreen.co.uk> References: <a0777e080911080731w461e6733peb0a5473acf07aa8@mail.gmail.com> <4AF897A4.3070408@delphij.net> <20091109225232.GA34294@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <a0777e080911092251r3dd39303q4f309aaf4076daf@mail.gmail.com> <4AF9B6CC.5090308@delphij.net> <a0777e080911101228m5a576460g5946c4d1c0923012@mail.gmail.com> <20091113011000.GA45256@atarininja.org> <a0777e080911130000j5c8ffa33r90ad2ac387387c65@mail.gmail.com> <20091113200607.GA59749@atarininja.org> <4AFED0D3.2050403@paradisegreen.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2009-Nov-14 15:46:27 +0000, Thomas Sandford <freebsduser@paradisegreen.c= o.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.=20 >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=20 >present a consistent way of doing things rather than different=20 >maintainers doing their own thing and solving problems in different, and= =20 >quite possibly sub-optimal ways and/or bloating multiple individual port= =20 >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. --=20 Peter Jeremy --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAksAaRIACgkQ/opHv/APuIctcgCfZSGUSr/4sTc4Axks3wIkbUQa d5wAoIIRzCTsZjCKsphBMGxrl0u6BpIj =hBX/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091115204818.GA57571>