Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2009-Nov-14 15:46:27 +0000, Thomas Sandford 
<> 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.
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) 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 that can be .include'd by the port when it needs the

Personally I think the performance difference between

.include "${PORTSDIR}/Mk/"


and only explicitly including it in the ports that use it is marginal, but I could certainly live with this as a compromise.

Thomas Sandford
_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""

Reply via email to