From owner-freebsd-perl@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 19 02:12:56 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: perl@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9581065675 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:12:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345448FC1D for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:12:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 14491 invoked by uid 399); 19 Jul 2010 02:12:55 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 19 Jul 2010 02:12:55 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4C43B4A5.5080104@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:12:53 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Thunderbird/3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <20100718223830.GA10338@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20100718223830.GA10338@lonesome.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, jhell , perl@FreeBSD.org, skv@FreeBSD.org Subject: bsd.perl.mk (Was: Re: _PERL_REFACTORING_COMPLETE lang/perl5.12 Mk/bsd.perl.mk) X-BeenThere: freebsd-perl@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: maintainer of a number of perl-related ports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:12:56 -0000 On 07/18/10 15:38, Mark Linimon wrote: > The intention of bsd.perl.mk was to eventually allow a bunch of code > to be pulled out of bsd.port.mk, and to have bsd.perl.mk only included > conditionally, on the theory that it will speed up INDEX building > somewhat. (I have not tested for speedup). Sounds like something that should be tested. > The problem is that there are N ports that assume that the logic in > bsd.perl.mk is always available. I've tried to convince people that > these are bugs, but OTOH if you leave out one of these definitions > such as USE_PERL5 or PERL_CONFIGURE, and _PERL_REFACTORING_COMPLETE > is defined, then INDEX breaks. I'm confused. Are you saying that there are ports that try to use stuff that's defined in bsd.perl.mk without including it? If so, that should be fixed. Also, how many ports are we talking about here? What is duplicated between .mk files? Is there an easy algorithm to determine this? > Every once in a while I try to put in patches to force N to zero, but > then I get stuck on wierd edge cases. This is why the switch has not > been thrown. Step 1: Fix the easy cases Step 2: Notify maintainers of wacky edge cases (perhaps followed by a brief delay to let them fix it themselves) Step 2: Disconnect broken wacky edge cases from the build Step 3: Reconnect wacky edge cases as they get fixed At bare minimum Step 1 should be followed immediately to avoid people copy/pasting bad examples. > Every time I try to work on this, "something happens" and it gets > shoved on the back-burner for several months. This has been going > on for several years now ... Then it's way beyond time you asked for help. :) I've cc'ed perl@ in case they are interested in this. If not, I might be. > At this point it may be better to just do the following: > > - unconditionally include bsd.perl.mk and get rid of the code > duplication that is in bsd.port.mk. Um, no. That's 100% backwards. If you're going to include it unconditionally there is no point in having a separate file. But I don't think that including it unconditionally is the right answer, it would be better to fix this properly. Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/ Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso