Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:31:29 -0400 From: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports Message-ID: <A292E154-8D5F-11D8-9644-000A9578CFCC@khera.org> In-Reply-To: <200404131516.i3DFGMJA078941@green.homeunix.org> References: <200404131516.i3DFGMJA078941@green.homeunix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail-10-483874581 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Apr 13, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > I'm not sure I understand why you don't just go all the way and embed > it in > the Makefile. Is it because make(1) is "slow"? Since pkg/COMMENT > turned > into pkg-comment and then COMMENT= in the Makefile, it's not hard to > imagine > the same could be done for pkg/DESCR -> pkg-descr -> DESCR=, pkg/PLIST > -> > pkg-plist -> PLIST=, and then every port would only be a single file. > Heck, > even if Makefile became, itself, the XML PkgData file that defines > everything in every port, it's not like there couldn't be a > portmake(1) that > did "PkgData --Makefile" and called make(1) with all the rest of its > arguments except doing a file descriptor redirection or temporary file > redirection and adding a -f <contrived_Makefile>. > See http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/ that's pretty much how it works, but their command is called "port" and the port description files are written in TCL. Mostly, actually. The patch files are still external. --Apple-Mail-10-483874581--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A292E154-8D5F-11D8-9644-000A9578CFCC>