Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 01:21:23 -0700 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=) To: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-share@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <199504210821.BAA15192@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <1983.798448450@freefall.cdrom.com> (jkh@freefall.cdrom.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else see: * * (1) Call pre-* target (if exists) * (2) Call scripts/pre-* script (if exists) * (3) Call do-* target (if exists) * (4) Call scripts/do-* target (if exists) * (5) Call post-* target (if exists) * (6) Call scripts/post-* script (if exists) * * As slightly more consistent? Or is this just a gratuitous addition of * functionality? Well, the "if exists" test for the do-* target is not really required, because the do-* targets are defined in bsd.port.mk itself (and you can't undefine a target). But you are right, it is certainly more orthogonal to add scripts/do-*. Although there really isn't any necessity for that...I mean, people will override do-* if and only if they don't want something in the default do-* targets to happen. So, if I want to override it by a script, I can define an empty do-* target in my Makefile and then supply a pre-* or post-* script to do the real work. So, I don't think it's necessary, but if people think it's more consistent that way, I certainly won't oppose. After all, I'm the one who started this overhaul thing just for the sake of consistency and orthogonality. :) Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504210821.BAA15192>