Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:07:44 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> Cc: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The evils of Makefile-embedded perl scripts vs patches Message-ID: <3B7A6610.998DB13B@FreeBSD.org> References: <58526.997875545@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sheldon Hearn wrote: > [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. This is only the one side of the coin. In some cases perl onliner is invaluable to help greatly reduce maintenance costs. Take GNOME as an perfect example: it consists of two dozens core components and about 100-150 applications, most of which need the same tweakage to make them working on FreeBSD. Wihout onliners we would have to maintain several hundreds of functionally equivalent patches, which is PITA of course. Instead we added three identical lines into each makefile, and voila - it works! -Maxim 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?3B7A6610.998DB13B>