Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 23:39:21 -0800 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami/=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=) To: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com Cc: ports@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: Recent bsd.port.mk enhancements.. Message-ID: <199504020739.XAA05677@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199504010814.AAA16328@freefall.cdrom.com> (jkh@freefall.cdrom.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Just one comment: They don't mean a thing if they're not documented in
* GUIDELINES or ports.FAQ (which I'd actually like to see folded into one
* document, to be honest). This stuff is getting _really complex_ and
* if we don't document all the options, most ports-hopefuls will be scared
* away!
Ok ok...I'm now writing an updated GUIDELINES....
* We need to really start working on the rough edges of all of this a bit
* more than we probably need to grow it right now.. I'm always very happy
* to see new ports, mind you, but I think we have an impending catastrophe
* on our hands! :-)
Sorry, I guess I'm the person responsible for most of the recent
introduction of rough edges.... ;) Anyway, my suggestions:
(1) More orthogonality in the pre- and post- targets, in particular,
add post-* to every stage and uniformize the way they are called
(e.g., first run a script in scripts/ if it exists, then run a
target in Makefile).
The way it is now, I need to peek into bsd.port.mk to see if a
particular target is supported. Also, the non-existence of
post-install is painful because I need to ensure the install
directories exist if I try to install extra stuff in the
pre-install target.
(2) Take away all of the defaults in Makefile variables. (Hey stop
yelling...I told you it's just a suggestion. ;)
I know that the way it is now, it's very easy for us "experienced"
porters, because we know what are the defaults and just need to
fill out the necessary variables...but for people who are trying
to port something for the first time, this is scary because the
"sample" Makefiles in /usr/ports are so sparse and they just don't
know what are the defaults. It's hard to read the GUIDELINES (or
bsd.port.mk) in one window while editing the Makefile in another.
This way, it would be much easier to grab a working port and
change it to make it work for something else.
(3) A better GUIDELINES file. I'm writing one now and probably commit
it later tonight. I'll also attach a sample Makefile at the end
so users can cut it off and fill out the spaces to make a working
one.
Satoshi
* (*) Someone tried to convince me of this early on, I stubbornly refused,
* he was right and I was wrong! :-(
Don't know what changed your mind, but I'm not convinced yet :)...I
still think it's too much work for us to maintain multiple versions.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504020739.XAA05677>