Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:24:02 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: csdayton@midway.uchicago.edu Cc: imp@village.org, ports@freebsd.org, mark@grondar.za Subject: Re: Automatic ports Makefile generator? Message-ID: <199608022024.NAA07816@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199608021709.MAA04372@woodlawn.uchicago.edu> (message from Soren Dayton on Fri, 02 Aug 1996 12:09:47 CDT)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* This is what I am concerned about. Patches seem to be applied in
* blocks that do not necessarily map nicely onto the files that they change.
Yes, everything will be lumped into one big "patch-aa" or it will be
one file per patchfile. Either way it loses the nice logical
separation that many ports have ("patch-aa for Makefile tweaks,
patch-ab for malloc.h changes, etc.").
Also, I'd hate to have people send in ports with mega-patches that
change Makefile when the port uses Imakefile, configure when it can be
done by a 2-line patch and autoconf, etc. The "generator" should be
real smart to be able to do this.
* will it generate the list of files? That is the most frustrating thing
* for me for big packages. something that reads the make output and
* figures out where the files went would be marvelous.
I've heard someone wrote a tool to do this (on HP-UX I believe) a
"find /usr/local | touch; install; find -newer" kind of thing to at
least get the list correctly. With our implementation of symbolic
links, I don't know how well it will work for us, though.
Hmm, maybe a diff of locate database?
Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608022024.NAA07816>