From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Aug 1 22:54:12 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA21512 for ports-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 22:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freenet.hamilton.on.ca (main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca [199.212.94.65]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA21507 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 22:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca [199.212.94.66]) by freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA05493; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:53:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from ac199@localhost) by james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA24441; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:55:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek To: Chuck Robey cc: "David E. O'Brien" , FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: Sample Makefile In-Reply-To: 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, Chuck Robey 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. Ok. I'll do that. > -------------------cut here (and you'll ruin your monitor!)-------------- I'm more worried about what it'd do to my hdd, actually. > |--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | NOTE - This file is unneccesarily complicated by these comments. > | Any comments that begins with "|" MUST NOT be in a final port. > | They are just here for your enlightenment. I'm often critisized for not being particularly tactful, or another such silly thing, so take this at considerably less than face value. I'm not sure I see the advantage of this over the sample makefile already part of porting.sgml. It doesn't serve to document anything new, and only complicates the example. Doing my second port right now, I can say that I think this example would have repulsed me. The current one seemed to do a great job. What I would find more helpful is more examples with regards to "real-life" porting problems. For example, an expanded "Do's and Don'ts" section, or suggestions on when to define a port as interactive, and when to simply make gimmee-type decisions (wrt to compilation-options). > | LIB_DEPENDS -- depends on this library, both to build and run. > | Set to "lib:dir", where lib is the name of the library to be searched for, > | and dir is the name of the directory to go to and do a "make all install" > | in if the library is not found. If the library is found, then it won't > | be rebuilt, else the port in "dir" will be built and installed. Unless this has changed, you should specify "shared" libraries, here. Other libraries have to be checked, I believe, either through over-riding some depends targets (yuck) or making a pre-build: target. > |--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | PATCH Creation Notes: > | > | To make a patch file: To balance my earlier comment (and to continue being frank as opposed to tactful), I think that this is Good and can be quite useful. I don't think it belongs in a sample Makefile, though... For the rest of it, my original comment applies, though. :) -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk