Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 18:35:44 +0900 From: "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@iDaemons.org> To: "Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira" <lioux@uol.com.br> 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: <868zf6p7v3.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> In-Reply-To: <20010923055224.A93855@exxodus.fedaykin.here> References: <20010923055224.A93855@exxodus.fedaykin.here>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wow, go Mario, go! :)
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'.
> d2) Should {MASTER,PATCH}_SITE_SUBDIR_n or
> {MASTER,PATCH}_SITE_n_SUBDIR? I prefer the former,
> easier to spot
Agreed.
> 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. :)
> 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
`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.
> d5) Others doubts I am sure will be brought by reviewers of
> the code :)
I've just read the design. I'll look into the implementation later.
> 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} \
...
> 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. :)
Great work! :)
--
/
/__ __ Akinori.org / MUSHA.org
/ ) ) ) ) / FreeBSD.org / Ruby-lang.org
Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( @ iDaemons.org / and.or.jp
"Freeze this moment a little bit longer, make each impression
a little bit stronger.. Experience slips away -- Time stand still"
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?868zf6p7v3.wl>