Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 19:58:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Versioning bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970821195107.8512B-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> In-Reply-To: <97Aug21.153526pdt.177486@crevenia.parc.xerox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Bill Fenner wrote:
> update-required-bsd.port.mk-version:
> mv Makefile Makefile.bak
> sed -e "s/NEED_MK_VERSION=.*/NEED_MK_VERSION= ${BSD_PORT_MK_VERSION}/" < Makefile.bak > Makefile
Yuck. Please, no.
I like the method you outline in another message. Store the
required version in a file, and make that file depend on the
port Makefile.
But, please don't put the MK_VER_REQ file in files/, put in pkg/
with all of everything else. We already have pkg/MD5 which is
totally irrelavent to packaging, so this will fit in just finely. :)
> Or, the bsd.port.mk version requirement could be stored in a file in the
> files/ directory --
Use the pkg/ directory.
> I like this one less, since the Makefile is generally
> the thing that creates the requirement for a certain version, but it's
> certainly easier to maintain without worrying about spamming the Makefile
> when trying to automatically update it.
I think the last thing anyone wants is more maintainance hassles.
Putting the version requirement in a pkg/file doesn't strike me
as terribly ugly, but throwing a variable into the port Makefile
which has nothing to do with the port itself does strike me as
ugly.
--
Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never!
tIM...HOEk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.970821195107.8512B-100000>