Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:25:53 +0100 From: Erwin Lansing <erwin@lansing.dk> To: Doug Barton <DougB@dougbarton.net> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/p5-Mail-SpamAssassin Makefile distinfo pkg-plist Message-ID: <20040130152553.GB46405@droso.net> In-Reply-To: <401A5DE3.8000902@dougbarton.net> References: <200401191544.i0JFib85052132@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040119163258.GB4722@dragon.nuxi.com> <359167705.1074533881@andromede.reaumur.absolight.net> <20040119184544.GB6433@dragon.nuxi.com> <2549890.1074541889@pouet.in.mat.cc> <20040119190410.GB72147@droso.net> <401A5DE3.8000902@dougbarton.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:36:35PM +0100, Doug Barton wrote:
> Erwin Lansing wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:51:29PM +0100, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> >
> >>+-Le 19/01/2004 10:45 -0800, David O'Brien écrivait :
> >>|
> >>| Well, I guess that opens up a discussion then. I don't use many "p5"
> >>| ports, but I certainly do use SpamAssassin daily. So I hadn't noticed
> >>| that they go against the Porters Handbook and 'portlint'. It is
> >>| important to keep things all in the proper section so a user like me can
> >>| know what dependencies there are. Often I install dependencies from a
> >>| precompiled package before I add local patches to the "leaf" port that I
> >>| ultimately want installed.
> >>
> >>Well, portlint will complain if you do things badly, but it won't complain
> >>when you do just that.
> >>perl ports have been done this way for ages, I mean, the normal
> >>dependencies at the right place, and the dependencies depending on perl
> >>version at the end. I was told it was the right way to do it when I began
> >>updating ports, so I though it was the right way.
> >>
> >
> >I'd say it's the only way, so unless someone finds a better way to make
> >dependencies conditional, this is the right way.
>
> Um, saying this is "the only way" is just plain silly. It worked just
> fine the way it was, so what we're talking about is style, not
> functionality.
Let me rephrase. I don't know of any better way to do it.
>
> What overwhelming problem is caused by including bsd.port.pre.mk early
> that needs to be solved by violating style guidelines followed by the
> rest of the ports tree?
If you know a better way to make dependencies conditional on the perl
version installed, I'd be happy to update my ports.
>
> >make -V RUN_DEPENDS will give you the dependencies you want after
> >evaluating the conditions. I would recommend using this instead of
> >reading the raw Makefile.
>
> Personally I find that 'make clean' does a pretty good job most of the time.
>
That would be another useful way.
Cheers,
-erwin
--
_._ _,-'""`-._
Erwin Lansing (,-.`._,'( |\`-/| erwin@lansing.dk
http://droso.org `-.-' \ )-`( , o o) erwin@FreeBSD.org
-bf- `- \`_`"'-
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFAGneBqy9aWxUlaZARAhIbAKD5FGRoH7agLkHLtgN0OtEXUMlzlwCdH2xz
D59VE81stX5kZYXPdJaA2Ik=
=gVVY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040130152553.GB46405>