Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:43:34 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org>
To:        Warner Losh <imp@rover.village.org>
Cc:        Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu>, fenner@parc.xerox.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Versioning bsd.port.mk 
Message-ID:  <Pine.GSO.3.96.970822142902.7088A-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
In-Reply-To: <E0x1wpq-00052M-00@rover.village.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Warner Losh wrote:

> Hmmm.  I'm not sure that that is even foolproof.  If you are making
> changes to the bsd.port.mk file while I'm making changes to the
> gerbils port.  My changes get in first, and then yours.  My changes
> depend on version n-1 of the bsd.port.mk file, but version n breaks

I think it's necessary to assume that version n+1 of bsd.port.mk
will work with a Makefile designed for version n.  If you use
strict version n for version n matching it'll become difficult to
keep everything sync'd (for every revision of bsd.port.mk, each
Makefile (or files/VER) would need updating, plus expected user
frustration at having to upgrade their ports subsystem
considerably more often than necessary). 

I think if you want to catch cases where a Makefile depending on
bsd.port.mk version n-1 doesn't work with bsd.port.mk version n
you have to use either a feature-for-feature compatibility check
(yuck) or what Bill suggested -- just print out a warning "try
upgrading bsd.port.mk??" on errors.

The one problem there is with matching RCS strings, which I
mentioned before, is catching the case where a port is updated
but bsd.port.mk isn't touched.  Like I said, then, if you're
willing to let that case slide....

[although I still prefer Itojun's last patch to all other
solutions :-]


--
Outnumbered?  Maybe.  Outspoken?  Never!
tIM...HOEk




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.970822142902.7088A-100000>