Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:19:40 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r392209 - in head/devel: . p5-Minilla Message-ID: <20150717061940.GA48401@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <02A72E36-1D93-42EF-85FA-D3AA8B0D667E@adamw.org> References: <F55E1B42FC419AF2D5795884@atuin.in.mat.cc> <20150716014306.GA68880@FreeBSD.org> <20150716091021.GW37597@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20150716092053.GX37597@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20150716145201.GA13745@FreeBSD.org> <20150716145920.GY37597@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20150716151730.GA21677@FreeBSD.org> <20150716152043.GZ37597@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20150716153045.GB21677@FreeBSD.org> <02A72E36-1D93-42EF-85FA-D3AA8B0D667E@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:14:31PM -0700, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> I'd just like to mention PR 191273, which suggesting adding a new depends
> macro that registers a BUILD_ and RUN_DEPENDS.
>
> BUILDANDRUN_DEPENDS= foo:...
> (Or something. I'm terrible at naming things, but the concept/patch is
> there.)
Personally I think this is slightly over-engineered; I guess I'm not firmly
against it, but see no value in such macro for myself.
> By way of examples, a huge percentage of Perl modules rely on :=, and many
> of them perform impressive manoeuvres to assign
> RUN_DEPENDS:= ${BUILD_DEPENDS}
> BUILD_DEPENDS+= ???
> or my favorite
> BUILD_DEPENDS= foo:...
> RUN_DEPENDS:= ${BUILD_DEPENDS:Nfoo*}
Again, I don't see the problem. Do your rdeps exactly equal to bdeps? If
yes, use :=. Minor differences can be compensated with a trick, as long as
it's readable and intention (logic) is clear. If things go further south
then you're probably better off with another variable or two. Use common
sense, Luke! ;-) Goes without saying you need to check and test, bla-bla.
> The fact that not even the PHB was clear on whether := was correct suggests
> that there is a problem that can use a solution.
PHB was (and is) quite clear; and there's nothing technically wrong in :=
when it being used correctly. The problem here is mostly with people who
not (or do not want to) know their tools well enough, so := is considered
(with a certain merit) dangerous (read: easy to misuse) by some folks.
I don't want to argue is it really that dangerous, or should we encourage
it or not. I find this feature valuable, I know when to use it, and I do
not like people telling me NOT to use it because there might be idiots^W
people that do not understand make(1) internals out there.
./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150717061940.GA48401>