Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:19:47 -0600 From: Robin Schoonover <end@endif.cjb.net> To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Cc: Martin <nakal@web.de> Subject: Re: Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports Message-ID: <20040414131949.3A56E43D31@mx1.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <xzp1xmq90gk.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <p0602040cbca10a7dbe52@[128.113.24.47]> <20040413121925.GB29867@voodoo.oberon.net> <p0602041abca1e49dde40@[128.113.24.47]> <407C4035.8020609@ciam.ru> <p0602041fbca1ff481e60@[128.113.24.47]> <1081896823.772.58.camel@klotz.local> <xzp1xmq90gk.fsf@dwp.des.no>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:02:35 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Martin <nakal@web.de> writes: > > I would personally like it to use XML. I'm developing a small > > application which is a kind of GUI for ports (works like a > > browser). It is very difficult to parse the Makefiles to find > > out which version number and which dependencies it has. Some > > versions (like KDE3) are just variables and I don't have an > > idea how to fetch them yet. > > make -V > I use make -V a lot, and it's slow (every time you run it, make has to reread all the bsd.*.mk files, such as bsd.port.mk). The speed isn't much of an issue when you only do one or two ports, but when you are examining the entire ports collection, you notice. That said, I'd still rather use a makefile based ports system anyway. -- Robin Schoonover (aka End) # # Actual newspaper headline: Include your Children when Baking Cookies #help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040414131949.3A56E43D31>