From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Fri Jul 17 06:19:40 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8329A4951; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:19:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5718812A9; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:19:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 558741C45; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:19:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:19:40 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Adam Weinberger Cc: Baptiste Daroussin , Mathieu Arnold , Dmitry Marakasov , 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> References: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <02A72E36-1D93-42EF-85FA-D3AA8B0D667E@adamw.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:19:40 -0000 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