Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:57:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Versioning bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970822144848.7088B-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> In-Reply-To: <97Aug22.092938pdt.177486@crevenia.parc.xerox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Bill Fenner wrote: > Tim Vanderhoek <tim@x22> wrote: > >Yes, every port should depend on a specific revision of > >bsd.port.mk, not just the complex ones. > > I disagree; a port that uses only $DISTNAME and $MASTER_SITES will > never break (unless we're morons). Well..... ;-) > >By the way, do we really agree that we should force this variable > >(modulo manual overrides, of course) to exactly match the timestamp of > >bsd.port.mk? > > No, I thought that it should be "this-version-or-newer", just like when > using __FreeBSD_version or BSD defines. Itojun's patch uses "this-version-or-newer". Exact matching would be more of a hassle to use, I think. > I guess there's no "on error" target in Make -- maybe we could forget > all this versioning stuff and print a message about making sure your > bsd.port.mk was up to date when a build error occurs. Which wouldn't catch errors that don't cause something to fail. Eg. If bsd.port.mk adds a new variable, DOCFILES, a port depending on this won't fail, and neither make(1) nor bsd.port.mk will release an error (ie. failure to install DOCFILES) occured. Well..they could check the PLIST to make sure all listed files are installed, but.... -- 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.3.96.970822144848.7088B-100000>