From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Aug 1 20:59:52 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA16808 for ports-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 20:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA16802 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 20:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA10602; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 20:59:08 -0700 (PDT) To: Chuck Robey cc: "David E. O'Brien" , FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: Sample Makefile In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Aug 1996 21:39:30 EDT." Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 20:59:08 -0700 Message-ID: <10600.838958348@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > That's why I asked at the beginning if this was the direction. I was > writing a Makefile for a human to read. You're asking for a machine > driven one, essentially useless for a human (one that doesn't know how to > write a ports Makefile from the beginning anyways). It should be obvious > that I wasn't pointing towards that. Yes, it was, and I wasn't really sure whether or not the human Makefile would work as a concept until I saw the size of yours. The sheer amount of reading one would have to do in order to use it in the full construction of a port is rather self-defeating if you're trying to make the process quicker and less knowledge intensive. > the idea of someone else doing that, but my own opinion is that such a > thing would too radically limit what you could get done in adapting the > software of some _not under your control_ to a FreeBSD environment. I Huh? The ports collection is *all about* adapting software not under your control to a FreeBSD environment! ;-) Jordan