Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 22:43:28 -0300 From: "Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira" <lioux@uol.com.br> To: Akinori MUSHA <knu@iDaemons.org> Cc: FreeBSD-ports@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org, Patrick Li <pat@databits.net>, fenner@FreeBSD.org, kris@FreeBSD.org, green@FreeBSD.org, julian@FreeBSD.org, petef@FreeBSD.org, cwasser@v-wave.com, sjh-cl@horan.net.au, john_m_cooper@yahoo.com, matt@ipperformance.com Subject: Re: review plz MASTER_SITES_n (ala OpenBSD) patch for bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <20010923224328.B9796@exxodus.fedaykin.here> In-Reply-To: <868zf6p7v3.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>; from knu@iDaemons.org on Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:35:22PM %2B0900 References: <20010923055224.A93855@exxodus.fedaykin.here> <868zf6p7v3.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:35:22PM +0900, Akinori MUSHA wrote:
> Wow, go Mario, go! :)
Vrum, vrum, vrum.... Vrummmmm! :-D
> At Sun, 23 Sep 2001 05:52:24 -0300,
> Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
> > d1) Should we use {MASTER,PATCH}_SITES_n or
> > {MASTER,PATCH}_SITESn as does OpenBSD (green we should
> > use _n cleaner syntax) ?
>
> I definitely prefer `_suffix' to `suffix'.
Agreed. The default on the patch.
[snip]
> > d3) Should {master,patch}-sites do what is cited in (b) ?
> > Or, should they only list the contents of {MASTER,PATCH}_SITES
> > and leave the full listing for {master,patch}-sites-all ?
> > I prefer the later, since it is uniform. I do not
> > know how (if any) much impact will have this behavior
> > change
>
> No doubt the latter. :)
I like it too, but I think this requires a bit more
discussing. Don't know if any important project scripts rely on
this behavior. Probably "fixing" them will set us free to do this.
:woot)
> > d4) Should make -V {DIST,PATCH}FILES hide the postfix :n ? I'd
> > rather not, since this is an interesting information
> > which cannot be accessed any other way by external
> > means (unless we place it in another well-known variable)
>
> Is that possible? Many ports define DISTFILES themselves and I think
Yeah. Blessed be the magical :=, just check the little
SUBDIR routine for MASTER_SITES inside bsd.port.mk
> `make -V DISTFILES' would certainly show the values as-is... Even if
> you can, you should not fake the values.
>
> For that purpose you could have new variables _{DIST,PATCH}FILES or
> something which hold the values with :n suffixes trimmed.
This is exactly what was done. {DIST,PATCH}FILES hold the
untouched values and _{DIST,PATCH}FILES hold processed one without
postfixed codes.
[snip]
> > i1) As n can be [0-9a-zA-Z_]+ , what if the variables inside
> > bsd.sites.mk were of the form MASTER_SITES_.* instead
> > of MASTER_SITE_.*? For example, we could use
> > MASTER_SITES_SOURCEFORGE by simply having n be SOURCEFORGE
> > for example, very interesting. Or, I could add code to
> > check for {MASTER,PATCH}_SITE_n as well. Just a thought.
>
> In order not to break the backward compatibility, I suggest the
> following:
>
> - User define MASTER_SITE_FOO, just as before, in
> /etc/make.conf. (or ports.conf in future)
>
> - MASTER_SITES_FOO include MASTER_SITE_FOO in bsd.sites.mk.
>
> before:
> MASTER_SITE_FOO+= \
> ...
>
> after:
> MASTER_SITES_FOO= ${MASTER_SITE_FOO} \
> ...
Interesting, anyone will like to comment on this? However,
this will have to wait the discussion on the existence or not of
MASTER_SITES_n brought up by sobomax, he's got a very strong point.
Let's see how this one goes.
> > i2) This one is tempting, what if we could have several
> > groups postfixed to a single {dist,patch}file? For
> > instance, :m,n,o meaning it uses {MASTER,PATCH}_SITE_m,
> > {MASTER,PATCH}_SITE_n and {MASTER,PATCH}_SITE_o. A very
> > tempting thought.
>
> I don't think you want to implement that in the first stage. :)
I understand, but depending on how the MASTER_SITES_n
issue goes, this might be the only way to replicate some of the
functionality. It will be better understood on the next email on
this thread. Stay tuned. ;')
Thanks for the input. Keep it coming.
--
Mario S F Ferreira - UnB - Brazil - "I guess this is a signature."
lioux at ( freebsd dot org | linf dot unb dot br )
flames to beloved devnull@someotherworldbeloworabove.org
feature, n: a documented bug | bug, n: an undocumented feature
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?20010923224328.B9796>