From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 23 22:25:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6756116A4CE for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD1743D1F for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:25:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id AFDBB14729; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:25:47 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:25:47 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: ports@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: how to determine whether a port is a slave port? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:25:48 -0000 One of the things that I would like to have available for the database in my ports monitoring code is an indication of whether or not a port is a slave port. The Porter's Handbook recommends that the MASTERDIR makevar be used to establish that, but does not make it clear whether its use is mandatory or not. However, there are over 300 ports that do not seem to use this convention. Most seem to use the "${.CURDIR}/.." convention, although a few seem to use PORTSDIR directly. So, without wanting to start a bikeshed, are these just remnants of a time before MASTERDIR was introduced? Is there a consensus on how slave ports ought to be handled? mcl