From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Aug 15 4:37:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from axl.seasidesoftware.co.za (axl.seasidesoftware.co.za [196.31.7.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FC6037B410 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 04:37:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sheldonh@starjuice.net) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.seasidesoftware.co.za) by axl.seasidesoftware.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.31 #1) id 15Wz0r-000FDz-00; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:39:05 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Stijn Hoop Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: The evils of Makefile-embedded perl scripts vs patches In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:31:00 +0200." <58425.997875060@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:39:05 +0200 Message-ID: <58526.997875545@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [Was Re: Re: cvs commit: ports/games/freeciv ...] On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:31:00 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > What's wrong with it is that the Makefile isn't a place that folks > expect to find patches. People expect to find patches in the files > directory, names patch-*. Properly stored patches are also easier to > submit back to the vendor. Also, embedded perl scripts tend not to error out on failure to find a match. This means it's far too easy for the perl script to become stale. This was a perfect example. The perl script did absolutely _nothing_ useful any more. A patch file would have failed to apply, which would help the maintainer keep things tidy. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message