Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:17:30 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r392209 - in head/devel: . p5-Minilla Message-ID: <20150716151730.GA21677@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20150716145920.GY37597@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <201507152017.t6FKHElA056017@svnmir.geo.freebsd.org> <F55E1B42FC419AF2D5795884@atuin.in.mat.cc> <20150716014306.GA68880@FreeBSD.org> <20150716091021.GW37597@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20150716092053.GX37597@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20150716145201.GA13745@FreeBSD.org> <20150716145920.GY37597@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 04:59:21PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:52:01PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > I see your point. I'm not saying that := is *always* a better way; even > > though I must say debugging Makefiles is pretty easy with -V FOO and @echo > > in recipes. What I'm not happy with is blunt ":= is wrong, don't ever use > > it!" statement: it does come handy often in many cases and checking if it > > does the right thing is easy once you compare "make -V RUN_DEPENDS | md5" > > vs. "make -V BULID_DEPENDS | md5" (in addition to visual examination). > > That is imho a too pedantic approach, pragmatism should lead and pragmatism > is people often misunderstand it, and most people do not understand make(1) > internals (I won't blame them for that, I would prefer not knowing it in the > first place). By people I mean both maintainers and committers if you bring > to the battle the back we do support 2 differents make with slightly > different behaviours in some part it becomes even more complicated. > > We should promote safe syntaxes by handbook or by our own practive because > it will be used as example by others. that will save us from hours having > to clean the ports tree where things can easily break as a side effect of > changes in other parts of the framework. Fair enough; even though I still stand by the "people should know their tools" stanza. So I'm not openly against that change to the PHB section: lets make it easier for new folks to get a hold of things, no problem. But forbidding a 100% perfectly valid, supported, and documented syntax used in good will and intention by an experienced developer is IMO wrong. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150716151730.GA21677>