Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 19:53:21 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> Cc: "David E. O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com>, Satoshi Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/print/c2ps Makefile Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980228170200.8963C-100000@james.hwcn.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980228144155.316T-100000@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, Chuck Robey wrote: > > Good point by Chuck. Maybe we should keep the current a2ps port as the > > "guts" of the port, and add two shell ports, being a2ps-a4 and > > a2ps-letter. Might be less confusion for someone that doens't use the [...] > mechanism. I would lean toward an adaptation (via bsd.port.mk) of the > cookie idea that's in the current a2ps, but that is somewhat likely to be If we add ports such as a2ps-letter, etc. being wholly self-sufficient (ie. don't call `a2ps') then most of these problems solve themselves. Cookies aren't needed since a2ps-letter can only do -letter. INDEX isn't a problem. Packages are built properly. If we lose the single "a2ps" port, then the whole PAPERSIZE question becomes unnecessary. No one's concerned about the ports system growth. The significant disadvantage, I think, is the additional work of making sure twice the number of Makefiles (and patches, and etc) stay in sync when updating a port. Going the other way and adding only "shell" a2ps-letter will only solve 1) the INDEX problem, 2) the multiple-Makefile-sync problem, and 3) make it easy for ports with tens of papersizes to be built for one of these to be default. #1 is solved equally well by non-"shell" a2ps-letter. #2 strikes me as a "would-be-nice"-only feature. As far as #3, I don't think enough people want a default such as "quarto" (the one exception being letterdj, but we can't handle every exception). In exchange it'd be necessary to keep cookies, validate PAPERSIZES, and maybe provide a target for each PAPERSIZE for backwards consistency. Actually, none of those are too hard. Either way would be quite doable. FWIW, I think I prefer using just "shell" Makefiles in <port>-<papersize> (my opinion was originally the oposite :-). PSIZE_COOKIE= ${WRKDIR}/.psize_cookie .if exists(${PSIZE_COOKIE}) OPAPERSIZE:= ${PAPERSIZE} PAPERSIZE= PAPERSIZE!= ${CAT} ${PSIZE_COOKIE} .else .if !defined(PAPERSIZE) PAPERSIZE= A4 DEF_PAPERSIZE= yes .endif .endif .for PS in ${PSIZES} ${PS}: .if !exists(${PSIZE_COOKIE}) @${MKDIR} `dirname ${PSIZE_COOKIE}` @echo ${PS} > ${PSIZE_COOKIE} .else @if [ `${CAT} ${PSIZE_COOKIE}` != ${PS} ]; then \ ${ECHO_MSG} ">> Can not change paper-size!"; \ ${ECHO_MSG} ">> Try \`\`make clean ${PS}''"; \ fi .endif .endfor papercheck: .if defined(OPAPERSIZE) && ${OPAPERSIZE} != ${PAPERSIZE} ${ECHO_MSG} ">> Ignored PAPERSIZE=${OPAPERSIZE}, actually using ${PAPERSIZE}" ${ECHO_MSG} ">> Use \`\`make clean ${OPAPERSIZE}'' to get ${OPAPERSIZE}" .elif defined(DEP_PAPERSIZE) @${ECHO_MSG} ">> Defaulting PAPERSIZE to A4" @cd ${.CURDIR} && ${MAKE} ${.MAKEFLAGS} A4 .endif @if !(cd ${.CURDIR} && ${MAKE} ${.MAKEFLAGS} ${PAPERSIZE}); then \ ${ECHO_MSG} ">> Could not set the paper-size to ${PAPERSIZE}"; \ ${FALSE}; \ fi [blah blah] do-fetch: papercheck [blah blah] > Tim, you brought up the idea of doing it in bsd.port.mk. Any more > thoughts? Does anyone else think the cookie notion stinks, or how else Well, I'd actually been thinking about PAPERSIZE for a while and had just been waiting for time to write/test some stuff, but then this <port>-<papersize> idea came up, so I'm starting from scratch. ;) -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.980228170200.8963C-100000>