From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 1 00:10:39 2005 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 8D52316A4E3; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 00:10:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from connectmail.carleton.ca (connectmail.carleton.ca [134.117.2.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5445043D2F; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 00:10:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from adamw@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.1.105] ([134.117.145.25]) by connectmail.carleton.ca (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.02 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0IB700L6HHTRQQ@connectmail.carleton.ca>; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:10:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:13:22 -0500 From: Adam Weinberger In-reply-to: <20050131155701.U1177@ync.qbhto.arg> To: Doug Barton Message-id: <41FEC9A2.7070606@FreeBSD.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050105) References: <20050131143802.X1177@ync.qbhto.arg> <41FEC61F.6000309@FreeBSD.org> <20050131155701.U1177@ync.qbhto.arg> cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposed patch to inform users of fetchindex 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, 01 Feb 2005 00:10:39 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Adam Weinberger wrote: > >> Doug Barton wrote: >> >>> I can't help but think that the majority of users try to build their >>> own index because they don't know that there is a better alternative. >>> What would y'all think of the following patch? >> >> >> I like the warning, but I don't think that making a new target is >> really a good thing. I think that printing the warning message at the >> beginning of a 'make index' is better than having 'make index' not >> result in any INDEX whatsoever. > > > Another way to approach it would be: > > Index: Makefile > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/pcvs/ports/Makefile,v > retrieving revision 1.90 > diff -u -r1.90 Makefile > --- Makefile 17 Dec 2004 11:23:22 -0000 1.90 > +++ Makefile 31 Jan 2005 23:59:53 -0000 > @@ -66,8 +66,12 @@ > .include > > index: > +.if !defined(I_REALLY_MEAN_IT) > + @${ECHO} 'Warning' > +.else > @rm -f ${.CURDIR}/${INDEXFILE} > @cd ${.CURDIR} && make ${.CURDIR}/${INDEXFILE} > +.endif > > fetchindex: > @cd ${.CURDIR} && ${FETCHINDEX} > ${MASTER_SITE_INDEX}/${INDEXFILE}.bz2 && bunzip2 -f ${INDEXFILE}.bz2 && > chmod a+r ${INDEXFILE} > > > Or similar ... It's the general concept I want to get across here, the > implementation is a SMOP. I 1000% agree that a warning should be put in so that people know that they can use fetchindex instead of index, but I think that the general concept of issuing said warning INSTEAD of allowing default INDEX build behaviour would be a bad move. That said, I'd also be okay with having 'make index' do the same thing as 'make fetchindex', and have the current 'make index' behaviour be moved to a new target called 'make buildindex'. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger adamw@magnesium.net || adamw@FreeBSD.org adamw@vectors.cx || adamw@gnome.org http://www.vectors.cx