On 2009-Nov-14 15:46:27 +0000, Thomas Sandford 
<freebsdu...@paradisegreen.co.uk> wrote:
>Wesley Shields wrote:
>> 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.

Based on your numbers, 15 ports - less that 0.1% of the ports tree.

>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.

If it affected several hundred ports and/or was visible to the end
user then this might be justification for embedding it into bsd.*.mk.

The ports build infrastructure is already quite large (>20K LOC) and
difficult to follow.  The overheads associated with loading bsd.*.mk
files also makes operations like "make index" very time-consuming.
IMHO, bloating it further to marginally simplify life for the
maintainers of ~15 ports is not a good tradeoff.

Wesley's suggestion above sounds like the best solution.

>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.

If you still want to go this way, I'd suggest writing a stand-alone
bsd.vcs.mk that can be .include'd by the port when it needs the

Peter Jeremy

Attachment: pgpEvU8kYZsOq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to