Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 03:56:37 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: fenner@parc.xerox.com Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Versioning bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <199708221056.DAA06507@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <97Aug21.171248pdt.177486@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> (message from Bill Fenner on Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:12:35 PDT)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* 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.
Well, I don't think it changes anything about where the variable goes,
but it's not only the Makefile. We have things like pkg/MESSAGE added
to bsd.port.mk at some time.
The reason why I mentioned putting the variable in the Makefile was
because people are already having a hard enough time remembering to
commit all required files (how many times have you seen a "oops,
forgot to update files/md5" message?). Having it in the Makefile
itself would help avoid most of those.
One thing that we can do is to have a target in bsd.port.mk to
automatically update the Makefile (for lazy bones like me) but don't
make that run by default; just make it optional (like "makesum") and
warn/error if the versions don't match. People who don't want
bsd.port.mk to update the Makefile can just edit it themselves.
By the way, do we really agree that we should force this variable
(modulo manual overrides, of course) to exactly match the timestamp of
bsd.port.mk?
Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708221056.DAA06507>