Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2009-Nov-14 15:46:27 +0000, Thomas Sandford
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) 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
Personally I think the performance difference between
and only explicitly including it in the ports that use it is marginal,
but I could certainly live with this as a compromise.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"