Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 14:24:31 +0100 From: Moritz Schmitt <moritz@schmi.tt> To: Fernando =?utf-8?Q?Apestegu=C3=ADa?= <fernape@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r556329 - head/math/nauty Message-ID: <20201126132423.55oommg3vg4kljht@t470.schmi.tt> In-Reply-To: <X7%2BbC31K6VN/tDAY@graf.pompo.net> References: <202011261118.0AQBILBl077350@repo.freebsd.org> <X7%2BbC31K6VN/tDAY@graf.pompo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thierry Thomas (Nov 26, 2020):
> > + ${INSTALL_PROGRAM} ${WRKSRC}/addedgeg ${STAGEDIR}${PREFIX}/bin
> > + ${INSTALL_PROGRAM} ${WRKSRC}/amtog ${STAGEDIR}${PREFIX}/bin
> > + ${INSTALL_PROGRAM} ${WRKSRC}/assembleg ${STAGEDIR}${PREFIX}/bin
> 8< 8< 8<
>
> Is it only me? A .for loop as previously seems more readable than all
> these lines of ${INSTALL_PROGRAM}.
>
> (Yes, it produces the same result, this is just a matter of style)
It is indeed a matter of style, and if people object to it, I'm happy to
change it back.
My reason for getting rid of the for-loop is that I wanted to simplify
the Makefile and make it as straightforward as possible. Of course one
could have kept the non-standard PROGRAMS variable, but I wanted to add
a pkg-plist file anyway, and in the end it would have only saved 37
seven lines (and felt more convoluted to me).
Moritz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20201126132423.55oommg3vg4kljht>