Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:44:58 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: /usr/local/share/mk ? Message-ID: <20070201204458.GB74138@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20070201124052.D84181@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20070201111727.B83474@xorpc.icir.org> <20070201192051.GA72926@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070201113720.D83474@xorpc.icir.org> <20070201194417.GA73296@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070201122011.B84181@xorpc.icir.org> <20070201202511.GA74029@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070201124052.D84181@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 12:40:52PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 03:25:11PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 12:20:11PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:37:20AM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > Now, this may well be a one-of-a-kind case calling for an ad-hoc
> > > > > solution, but if all we need is accept to use ${PREFIX}/share/mk
> > > > > for third-party .mk files, this seems a better way to handle
> > > > > the problem.
> > > >=20
> > > > After >10 years you are apparently the first person to want such a
> > > > feature, so this suggests the application is limited :)
> > >=20
> > > possibly, yes. Or maybe there were other applications solved with
> > > other hacks - e.g. (randomly browsing in /usr/share/mk), do the
> > > following really belong there:
> > >=20
> > > bsd.info.mk - building GNU Info hypertext system
> > > bsd.snmpmod.mk - building modules for the SNMP daemon bs=
nmpd
> > >=20
> > > They don't seem to be a part of the 'base' system unlike all
> > > the others.
> >=20
> > ? Those are both used by components of the base.
> >=20
> > > So... there is not a recursive INSTALL, maybe nobody asked for it,
> > > but certainly we have a lot of replicated constructs in the
> > > ports' makefiles, and some port maintainers with a lot of patience :)
> >=20
> > OK, but I don't see what this has to do with your proposal.
>=20
> It was a remark on "you are the first one to ask in 10 years so
> maybe the application is limited". Sometimes there is a need for
> a feature, but people find it easier to use some workaround rather
> than asking for it.
OK, but showing other unrelated areas that might benefit from some
centralization doesn't support your specific proposal.
> The thing with bmake is that probably nothing other than the base
> system uses it - most ports use gmake for portability reasons,
> so maybe there is limited need to for custom 'mk' directories...
> yet if we provide one, hopefully people will start considering
> using it rather than workarounds (e.g. hardwiring the common
> settings in the individual Makefiles).
Around here we do things the other way around: show the necessity,
then add support for it. Otherwise we end up with an uncontrollable
proliferation of single-use features that quickly becomes
unmaintainable.
Kris
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFFwlFKWry0BWjoQKURAuCAAJwLhdkKGD8eWMMlYg1KkdgF4Mg1mQCeItW/
KP/DMSb2MGbrBZjuuOEhaX8=
=R0KK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070201204458.GB74138>