From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu Aug 21 17:13:31 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA02654
          for ports-outgoing; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alpha.xerox.com (alpha.Xerox.COM [13.1.64.93])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA02649
          for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crevenia.parc.xerox.com ([13.2.116.11]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <53779(1)>; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:12:55 PDT
Received: by crevenia.parc.xerox.com id <177486>; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:12:48 -0700
From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>
To: fenner@parc.xerox.com, hoek@hwcn.org
Subject: Re: Versioning bsd.port.mk
Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Message-Id: <97Aug21.171248pdt.177486@crevenia.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:12:35 PDT
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>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. :)

Uh, do you mean files/md5?  (which is why I suggested putting this
other requirement file in files/)

>but throwing a variable into the port Makefile
>which has nothing to do with the port itself does strike me as
>ugly.

The port Makefile is exactly what depends on bsd.port.mk, which is why
I suggested putting it there.  Using ${SH} in port Makefiles is what
started this thread.  And not every port needs it -- only ports with
complex Makefiles that use newer bsd.port.mk files - another reason to
link the requirement with the Makefile.

  Bill