Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 09:57:11 PDT From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: fenner@parc.xerox.com, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mbone/imm Makefile ports/mbone/imm/files Makefile.freebsd ports/mbone/imm/patches patch-ad Message-ID: <97Sep13.095719pdt.177486@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 13 Sep 97 03:12:34 PDT." <199709131012.DAA11487@blimp.mimi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) wrote:
>I still think it's better to have simple commands like
>that in the main Makefile so others can easily see what's going on.
Ok. I think this was inspired by sdr's configure script, which is:
cat ${FILESDIR}/Makefile.freebsd ${WRKSRC}/src/Makefile.template > ${WRKSRC}/fre
ebsd/Makefile
cp ${FILESDIR}/Makefile.work ${WRKSRC}/Makefile
This is called "configure" because sdr comes with scripts like the first
line in other directories (e.g. sunOS4/configure). And then once I had
a script there, I also copied the Makefile.work to ${WRKSRC}, although
that might belong in a post-fetch: target instead.
I think having scripts/configure do the work is easier than trying to
have ${WRKSRC}/freebsd/configure do the work, since do-configure isn't
really set up to cd to any directory other than ${WRKSRC} so I'd have
to do some funky magic anyway. But I think maybe the second line of
the configure script belongs in the Makefile instead.
Comments? Am I way over-analyzing a two-line shell script? =)
Bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?97Sep13.095719pdt.177486>