Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:01:51 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: SCRIPTS vs FILES (was: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/less Makefile lesspipe.sh) Message-ID: <20030307080151.GA4072@sunbay.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030306171511.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030306215832.GB95318@sunbay.com> <XFMail.20030306171511.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:15:11PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 06-Mar-2003 Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:25:21PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>
> >> On 06-Mar-2003 David O'Brien wrote:
> >> >> In any case, it's not _stupid_, as the default behavior of
> >> >> SCRIPTSNAME of stripping extensions fits 99% of cases, and
> >> >> it was designed bearing this in mind.
> >> >
> >> > Huh?? SCRIPTSNAME is only used when you need to over ride the default
> >> > behavior. Perhaps you are talking about "SCRIPTS". What I think is
> >> > stupid is that if I do use SCRIPTSNAME I still have to use SCRIPTS. Also
> >> > as written, bsd.prog.mk doesn't handle this well:
> >> >
> >> > .for script in ${SCRIPTS}
> >> > .if defined(SCRIPTSNAME)
> >> > SCRIPTSNAME_${script:T}?= ${SCRIPTSNAME}
> >> > .else
> >> > SCRIPTSNAME_${script:T}?= ${script:T:R}
> >> > .endif
> >> >
> >> > So what we have is SCRIPTS is a list, but SCRIPTSNAME name isn't.
> >> > So what happens with
> >> > ...
> >> > SCRIPTS=foo.sh bar.sh
> >> > SCRIPTSNAME=baz
> >> > .include <bsd.prog.mk>
> >> >
> >> > both get installed as baz. SCRIPTS and SCRIPTSNAME should be treated
> >> > separately. I'd fix it, but anytime I touch bsd.*.mk you pop up and I
> >> > have a federal case on my hands -- thus I now try hard to never touch
> >> > them.
> >>
> >> The SCRIPTSNAME stuff seems to be intentional. I use some hokey magic
> >> like so to deal with compiled python scripts:
> >>
> >> # Special rules to handle installing Python scripts
> >> .if defined(PYSRCS) && !empty(PYSRCS)
> >> PYOBJS= ${PYSRCS:S/$/c/}
> >> SCRIPTS+= ${PYOBJS}
> >> CLEANFILES+= ${PYOBJS}
> >> .ifdef PYDIR
> >> SCRIPTSDIR= ${PYDIR}
> >> .endif
> >> SCRIPTSMODE= 444
> >> .for script in ${PYOBJS}
> >> SCRIPTSNAME_${script:T}?= ${script}
> >> .endfor
> >> .endif
> >>
> >> Then I just have 'PYSRCS=foo.py bar.py' and the compiled versions get
> >> installed as foo.pyc and bar.pyc.
> >>
> > You'd better s/SCRIPTS/FILES/ then, and remove most
> > of your hokey. :-)
>
> I thought about adding a new type but that looked to be a lot
> more work than just messing with SCRIPTS.
>
Why add new type? FILES is already supported, and it smells
like what you actually need here. Untested:
# Special rules to handle installing Python scripts
.if defined(PYSRCS) && !empty(PYSRCS)
PYOBJS= ${PYSRCS:S/$/c/}
FILES+= ${PYOBJS}
CLEANFILES+= ${PYOBJS}
.ifdef PYDIR
FILESDIR= ${PYDIR}
.endif
.endif
Cheers,
--
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA,
ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG,
ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE+aFHuUkv4P6juNwoRAmeFAJwIlgCrjyXXs4fQ+IjtNCdeLkb9gwCfaXwW
jfsybINXTYznbxTud7B1FDM=
=bDPD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030307080151.GA4072>