On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 03:02:09AM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 06:56:04PM +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 01:11:37AM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > I think this port is a bad idea. It'll take a fairly long time to > > > build on pointyhat from all the pkg_adds (and it will be right at the > > > end of the package builds since it depends on everything else, so the > > > whole build will end up waiting for it), and it's not useful for > > > anyone apart from users of marcus' tinderbox scripts. Therefore it > > > should be reimplemented there instead. > > > > If I add a .ifdef to it which prevents it from being attempted to > > build on non-tinderbox systems, is that a good solution? Or does > > the packaging system ignore IGNOREs? > > No, it respects IGNORE..but I still don't see why it should be a port > instead of a small shell script included with the tinderbox.
Because a port understands that if I do USE_OPENLDAP, it will come up with the version of net/openldap which is currently defined in the ports framework, and if I do USE_PGSQL, it will come up with the version of databases/pgsql-xx-server which is currently defined in the ports framework. With an external script I have to somehow find out what the current versions for the USE_OPENLDAP and USE_PGSQL variables are. And besides invoken the powers of Make I have no idea how to do it properly. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
