From owner-freebsd-ports  Sat Apr 22 16:37:07 1995
Return-Path: ports-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id QAA06996
          for ports-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 16:37:07 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA06989
          ; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 16:37:06 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.cdrom.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami |
    =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?=
    =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=)
cc: jmz@freefall.cdrom.com, ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: XFree86 Makefile 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 22 Apr 95 14:12:00 PDT."
             <199504222112.OAA24823@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> 
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 16:37:06 -0700
Message-ID: <6988.798593826@freefall.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>
Sender: ports-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>  * BTW: what about my suggestion to move @${MAKE} ${.MAKEFLAGS} fake-pkg
>  * out of the do-install target? (If not I will have to make another pass
>  * through the print directory, since I missed this feature...)
> 
> I'm not sure what to do about this, I sent out a question to "ports"
> but got no response.  Maybe I'll ask again.  (See CC: )
> 
> What do people think about this?  I'm in favor of leaving it in
> do-install, for the sake of orthogonality (all the "main" targets look 
> exactly the same now).  But I understand Jean-Marc's point that we
> shouldn't let porters worry about internal details.

I think we should put it into the framework.  It's a "magic feature"
that users and ports hackers shouldn't need to know about.  Over time,
it will change and mutate and I *really* won't want users and ports
hackers knowing about it.  They might otherwise start making
assumptions about it!

						Jordan