Date: 08 Mar 2000 18:04:17 +0100 From: Roland Jesse <jesse@mail.CS.Uni-Magdeburg.De> To: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/17265: New port devel/tmake Message-ID: <0v4sahcs1a.fsf@cs.uni-magdeburg.de> In-Reply-To: Will Andrews's message of "Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:54:52 -0500" References: <200003081547.QAA04664@arthur.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <20000308115452.C424@argon.blackdawn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> writes:
> One of my (new ports/updated ports) needs tmake.
Well, I need it for my own work. :)
> > XCreate and maintain makefiles across many platforms and compilers
>
> I prefer,
> Extremely portable perl-based make utility
Fine with me.
> What is all this crap below here? We only need freebsd-g++, not all those
> other OS types. The only useful purpose for a port of tmake would be to
> generate makefiles from a tmake .pro file. If a developer wishes to
> distribute other parts of tmake, they can still get the tarball and install
> it with their own software package.
I disagree. It is kind of annoying when ports are only made in a way
that they are good as dependencies for other ports but not for serious
development besides that. As much as it is necessary to install header
files in case of libraries (see math/vtk for a real bad example) it is
a good idea to install not only the freebsd-g++ templates for tmake
but the couple others that are available, too.
> As I said above, this is too much cruft for what will be the 99% case of an
> install of tmake.
Well, that's the Microsoft argument. ;-)
In case my proposal violates common porting practice, do it your
way and I will stick with mine on my machine.
Roland
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0v4sahcs1a.fsf>