Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:20:44 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@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: <20150716152043.GZ37597@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20150716151730.GA21677@FreeBSD.org> 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> <20150716151730.GA21677@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--ri7MIv52hxsKkbzo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 03:17:30PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > 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 :=3D 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 ":=3D is wrong, don't e= ver use > > > it!" statement: it does come handy often in many cases and checking i= f 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). > >=20 > > That is imho a too pedantic approach, pragmatism should lead and pragma= tism > > is people often misunderstand it, and most people do not understand mak= e(1) > > internals (I won't blame them for that, I would prefer not knowing it i= n the > > first place). By people I mean both maintainers and committers if you b= ring > > to the battle the back we do support 2 differents make with slightly > > different behaviours in some part it becomes even more complicated. > >=20 > > We should promote safe syntaxes by handbook or by our own practive beca= use > > it will be used as example by others. that will save us from hours havi= ng > > to clean the ports tree where things can easily break as a side effect = of > > changes in other parts of the framework. >=20 > 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. >=20 > But forbidding a 100% perfectly valid, supported, and documented syntax > used in good will and intention by an experienced developer is IMO wrong. Given the number of times I had fixed side effect of this I bet I'm would l= ike to know how many people really knows how make(1) works :) in particular in = that area. With the new way of validating dependencies (where the pattern is now also checked after the dependency is installed, people would now quickly noticed= but before this recent change it was most of the time silent. poudriere was the= only tool able to notice that). Best regards, Bapt --ri7MIv52hxsKkbzo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlWny8sACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EztAACeO91xrcE+cqhG3u5Ipzy06ANc S/cAoLZhQ3TWQTa+4QJih3b44Zu4HSA8 =bW6K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ri7MIv52hxsKkbzo--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150716152043.GZ37597>