Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:09:56 +0100 From: Udo Erdelhoff <ue@nathan.ruhr.de> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: doc.common.mk 1.3 Message-ID: <20031231120956.GC45118@nathan.ruhr.de> In-Reply-To: <20031230.194507.56983609.hrs@eos.ocn.ne.jp> References: <20031230004119.GA19005@nathan.ruhr.de> <20031230.194507.56983609.hrs@eos.ocn.ne.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--xesSdrSSBC0PokLI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Morning, On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 07:45:07PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > I understand the problem. As you pointed out, currently > if the pathname does not include "doc" or "www", LANGCODE and > WWW_LANGCODE are not defined properly.=20 uh, no. My point was that a pre-defined LANGCODE is OVERWRITTEN (with a bad value) unless WWW_LANGCODE is not defined. But this is only a symptom of the real problem. The underlying question is: Why do I have to worry at all about www while working on docs? The bar for working on FreeBSD docs is already quite high with all the programs you need. Making it neccessary to think about the www directories raises this bar even higher. And "out-of-tree" builds are more than just substituing "/usr/www" and "/usr/doc" with "/home/ue/www" and "/home/ue/doc", respectivly. For example, everybody who works on more than one version of the release notes (I currently track FIFTEEN versions of them, with more to come) may very well have /usr/doc and /usr/www in their usual places, plus a huge "out-of-tree" chunk consisting of the various /usr/src/release/doc subtrees. Or, to keep things limited to doc/www, to have /usr/www and /usr/doc and their usual places plus an extra for test builds of the web site. I understand the need for some "guess-the-langcode-from-the-path" logic in the current build infrastructure to handle "cd /usr/doc;make" and stuff like that. I am not happy with it (what's so bad about adding LANGCODE?=3D<whatever> to each Makefile?), but that is another matter. In other words, your patch changes too much and introduces yet another set of variables that developers have to think about. And it links doc and www building together, allthough the two should be separate, clearly violating POLA. /s/Udo --=20 "When faced with a choice between evils, I always pick the one I haven't tried before." -- Mae West --xesSdrSSBC0PokLI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iQCVAwUBP/K8lEPoh1XnT6hxAQGUZAP8CJw9yeIBB4x/2+BWK87ZVdauhuVqKDs9 7Ukn7Le4NMo1DZ4sMyP/eh0vruEfWDie7IqxpDxh1pHM+QfCgmG1EGHGWbGC/56Z OgvGMoFL1GVjxgFukqBVLpdMvjANUBt1sG4SXzneMEGbVzttaXgYSyA1mTycxgWg UHfk2RWbC4Y= =h2WJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xesSdrSSBC0PokLI--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031231120956.GC45118>