From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jan 25 11:24:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (ringworld.nanolink.com [195.24.48.189]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B21237B6B4 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 2126 invoked by uid 1000); 25 Jan 2001 19:22:19 -0000 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:22:19 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev To: Marcel Moolenaar Cc: Warner Losh , clefevre@noos.fr, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patch for bsd.lib.mk to create include and lib dirs Message-ID: <20010125212219.D1122@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: Marcel Moolenaar , Warner Losh , clefevre@noos.fr, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20010124113902.B332@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <200101242202.f0OM2I961735@harmony.village.org> <20010125004143.B442@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <3A6F675F.1434C601@cup.hp.com> <20010125111440.A578@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <3A7071D8.F67B35BF@cup.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A7071D8.F67B35BF@cup.hp.com>; from marcel@cup.hp.com on Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:35:04AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:35:04AM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > Peter Pentchev wrote: > > > > As I stated in my original post though, this patch is meant for outside > > software packages which might still like to use bsd.lib.mk, install > > their stuff in /usr/local or such, and have the install fail because > > no one has created /usr/local/include/outsidepkg/. > > I somehow think our *.mk files are unsuitable for a wide audience. They > seem to be made very specificly targeted for the FreeBSD source tree. > Making the change is a signal that we promote/support the use of these > files outside the source tree and I don't think we can deliver. This > normally ends up in endless hackery until someone does a rewrite. Hmm.. What I have in mind is primarily an in-house application, which used to use a gmake Makefile with my own clean, depend, etc targets. Then I found out FreeBSD has very well thought-out makefiles. I'm toying with the idea of making a Makefile.bsd for some apps I want to release as ports; but come to think of it, yes, using bsd.*.mk is quite dangerous. And for the in-house app I'm working on - well - I have already made quite a few local source tree patches, adding another one will not be too much of a problem. > > And once again, yes, I know this can be done by overriding the > > beforeinstall target, but this requires knowledge of the inner workings > > of bsd.lib.mk - namely, explicitly invoking ${MAKE} _includeinstall. > > I suspect _includeinstall has that underscore for a reason ;) > > Hmmm, yes. I see what you mean. beforeinstall should have been an > (empty) leaf dependency for it to be easily overridable. > > If we ever want to rewrite the *.mk files, these hacks will very likely > go away and break their use outside the source tree. Other than this, if > noone objects or has any good alternatives, don't let me stop you from > making the change. Well, you almost talked me out of it :) Still, if there's a src committer who thinks this is not all that bad an idea, they might as well go ahead and do it :) G'luck, Peter -- This sentence would be seven words long if it were six words shorter. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message