From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Aug 2 12:55:36 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA25912 for ports-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA25905 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.6.9) id MAA07768; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608021955.MAA07768@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> To: ache@nagual.ru CC: jkh@time.cdrom.com, mark@grondar.za, ports@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <199608021620.UAA00913@nagual.ru> (ache@nagual.ru) Subject: Re: Automatic ports Makefile generator? From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk * Jordan, don't be so optimistic... As many ports maintainer I can say, * that only basic Makefile template can be autogenerated a bit, * patch/configure/script tweaks are real pain in the ass. * But... Generating basic Makefile template is void, in real practice * I just simple copy another Makefile... I'm even more pessimistic than you. My guess is that a Makefile generating script is going to be the ports' equivalent of computerized natural language translation -- i.e., unusable without careful checking by a well-experienced human. Also, I find a script that asks a hundred questions extremely annoying. Don't people find using an editor to edit out comments and questions easier? (Ok, maybe it's only me.) Maybe we should just put a template, that lists all possible variables, and let people fill it up. No comments to scare them off, just a reference to the handbook. Speaking of the handbook, I'm planning to enhance the sample Makefile to include links to descriptions of variables. An alphabetical index of common variables will also be added. Satoshi