Wesley Shields wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:00:08AM +0200, Eitan Adler wrote:
Actually I was thinking of eventually adding non-svn support as well....
I don't think bloating bsd.*.mk for the most common VCS out there is a
good idea, not to mention what happens when someone wants support for
some oddball VCS that is not normally used?
The reason I started on this project is because the version of mplayer in
ports is severely out of date. When I tried to update to port I noticed that
the project wants you to compile and install from svn. I also noticed a few
other ports that have hacks to let the maintainers "use his/her custom
scripts" stuck into the port's Makefile. I think it would be good if there
was some standardized way of solving both of these problems...
Sure, but it doesn't belong in bsd.*.mk. Turn it into a script and
submit it as a regular port.
If it were just one port and/or just a port maintainers tool I'd agree.
But this is something that affects MULTIPLE ports.
Surely the whole value/purpose of the ports build infrastructure is to
present a consistent way of doing things rather than different
maintainers doing their own thing and solving problems in different, and
quite possibly sub-optimal ways and/or bloating multiple individual port
Makefiles with what could be kept in a single bsd.*.mk file.
And if the file were (say) bsd.vcs.mk and were pulled in only if one of
etc were defined then the impact of the bloat on other ports is minimal.
A quick scan of ports reveals that the following contain the string "svn
export" in their Makefile
This thread has revealed at least two further ports that use a svn
distribution but where this is hidden from the user. That's 15 ports
already that could be sharing common code instead of doing it
themselves. How many do you need?
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"