From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Sep 23 18:43:49 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from ginsberg.uol.com.br (ginsberg.uol.com.br [200.231.206.26]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2B4437B43B for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 18:43:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 200.181.48.103 ([200.181.48.103]) by ginsberg.uol.com.br (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA00629 for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 22:41:37 -0300 (BRT) Received: (qmail 9929 invoked by uid 1001); 24 Sep 2001 01:43:50 -0000 From: "Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira" Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 22:43:28 -0300 To: Akinori MUSHA Cc: FreeBSD-ports@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org, Patrick Li , 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> References: <20010923055224.A93855@exxodus.fedaykin.here> <868zf6p7v3.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <868zf6p7v3.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>; from knu@iDaemons.org on Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 06:35:22PM +0900 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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