Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:16:34 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: .include "files/somefile" before .include <bsd.port.pre.mk> Message-ID: <972825D8-F7AD-11D8-91E7-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040827000808.45630425@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:56:44 +0300
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:41:36 +0200
>> Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +-Le 26/08/2004 23:32 +0300, Ion-Mihai Tetcu a dit :
>>> | Hi,
>>> |
>>> |
>>> | Is it legal to include a file from files _before_ including
>>> | bsd.port.pre.mk ?
>>> |
>>> | I need to obtain some long lists ( of DISTFILES and slave ports) and
>>> | having them in a separate file would make maintenance much more
>>> easy.
>>> |
>>> | The problem I see is that .CURDIR is not defined; does this break
>>> | something ?
>>>
>>> .CURDIR is an internal make variable, it's not defined by bsd.*.mk :
>>>
>>>
>>> mat $ cat Makefile
>>> test:
>>> @echo ${.CURDIR}
>>> mat $ make test
>>> /home/mat
>>
>> slave-ports-list contains:
>> SLAVE_PORTS= slave_port 1 \
>> slave_port2 \
>> .... etc ........
>>
>> ..............
>> .include "${.CURDIR}/files/slave-ports-list"
>> .for port in ${SLAVE_PORTS:O}
>> OPTIONS+= ${port} .......
>> .endfor
>> .include <bsd.port.pre.mk>
>> ............
>>
>> on make it search slave-port-list in /
>> Same (and expected) if I put ${FILESDIR}/slave-ports-list"
>
> Uh, sorry, it's working with ${.CURDIR}/files (and, of course not with
> FILESDIR), but portlint -CN complain:
> WARN: Makefile: possible direct use of "files" found. if so, use
> ${FILESDIR} instead.
>
> And I want do do the same for the DISTFILES.
>
> So I'm asking if it's OK to do so (e.g. portlint point of view) as I
> don't want write it all again if it doesn't obey style.
>
>>> What problem are you trying to solve ?
>>
>> Trying to have some infrastructure to easily maintain a port with about
>> 1000 distfiles by breaking it in slave ports and having a metaport to
>> install the small ones.
>
> And I have some scripts hat automate the a large part of the process.
Could you be more concrete? I fear that a port having 1000 distfiles is
not too friendly to users machines, so maybe we could find another
solution, like repackaging it. To make a concrete suggestion I have to
learn more about your problem, so could you tell us which software you
are porting and maybe give us a pointer to the Makefiles so far?
-Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?972825D8-F7AD-11D8-91E7-00039312D914>