From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Aug 1 18:39:34 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA10634 for ports-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from po1.glue.umd.edu (po1.glue.umd.edu [129.2.128.44]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA10628 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:39:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fiber.eng.umd.edu (fiber.eng.umd.edu [129.2.98.185]) by po1.glue.umd.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA25255; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 21:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost) by fiber.eng.umd.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA22539; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 21:39:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: fiber.eng.umd.edu: chuckr owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 21:39:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@fiber.eng.umd.edu To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: "David E. O'Brien" , FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: Sample Makefile In-Reply-To: <10174.838948336@time.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > I didn't want to at first, it's 13K in size, but I guess I will. I've > > pasted it to the end of this file. If you comment on it, please don't > > repost the whole thing to the list, but I'd like any comments anyone might > > have. > > Hmmm. That's pretty huge. Erm.. As that most worthy tome, "Science > Made Stupid", states: "Warty things too big, start over." > > [Those unfamilar with SMS will simply have to run right out and buy > a copy, now won't you?] > > I think this Makefile is a convincing argument that the human-readable > template file approach is a bad idea. What you want instead is a > template file that's *program* readable, and a program which uses > libdialog or X or whatever your choice of GUI technology is to prompt > the user for various things based on which fields it sees as > "optional", "non-optional" and so on. There would have to be some > very port-specific assumptions for certain fields, such as the > *_DEPENDS values which would require that you turn lists like "libz xpm" > into "Xpm\\.4\\.:${PORTSDIR}/graphics/xpm z\\.1\\.:${PORTSDIR}/devel/libz" > by searching the INDEX. A little additional stickyness, but nothing > insoluble. If you design the template file right, I could even see > a cgi version of the Makefile generator program. :-) That's why I asked at the beginning if this was the direction. I was writing a Makefile for a human to read. You're asking for a machine driven one, essentially useless for a human (one that doesn't know how to write a ports Makefile from the beginning anyways). It should be obvious that I wasn't pointing towards that. Having a template like that is useless without a program generator to build from, which could ask questions and fill things in. I'm not against the idea of someone else doing that, but my own opinion is that such a thing would too radically limit what you could get done in adapting the software of some _not under your control_ to a FreeBSD environment. I don't like that direction, so I will step aside on it. I'm not against someone proving me wrong, it's just my opinion that it's not the most productive direction to take. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and n3lxx, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 2.2 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------