Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:28:57 -0600 From: Steve Price <steve@FreeBSD.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [Proposal] Moving utility targets out of bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <20020326182857.GJ59834@bsd.havk.org> In-Reply-To: <3CA0990E.25246AFD@FreeBSD.org> References: <3CA0990E.25246AFD@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 05:51:42PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> Earlier today when walking through PRs assigned to a portmgr@ I've
> noticed that there is a quite large class of PRs proposing a new
> utility targets for bsd.port.mk ("utility targets" here are targets
> not used during ordinary `make package clean' process, such as
> makesum, fetch-recursive etc.). Since those targets provided for
> user's/developer's convinience only and don't affect
> package-generation facility (bento cluster) or Joe Ordinary User, it
> would be nice if we allow to ports committers to modify/extend them
> without explicit portmgr@ approval.
>
> My proposal is to move out those targets into another file (say
> <bsd.port.util.mk>) and allow ports committers to play with it freely
> using ordinary peer-review process. This will solve several problems
> at once:
[snip]
This is an interesting proposal. Along the same lines as the
speedups you recently committed to bsd.port.mk if these optional
bits had a knob whereby inclusion of them could be turned off in
the Joe Ordinary User case it should make for moderate at least
speedups by not having to read and parse a bunch of information
that isn't used. I'm not sure how much it would violate POLA to
default to not including these bits put it is definitely (IMHO)
something worth exploring.
-steve
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020326182857.GJ59834>