From owner-freebsd-commit Thu Oct 5 19:25:08 1995 Return-Path: owner-commit Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA04690 for freebsd-commit-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:25:08 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA04673 for cvs-all-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:24:56 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA04663 for cvs-share-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:24:54 -0700 Received: from forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU (forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.33.75]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA04657 ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:24:47 -0700 Received: (from asami@localhost) by forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id TAA18885; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:27:05 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:27:05 -0700 Message-Id: <199510060227.TAA18885@forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU> To: ache@astral.msk.su CC: ache@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-share@freefall.freebsd.org In-reply-to: Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.port.mk From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-commit@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk * >(2) Couldn't it have been done as a special target in the port * > Makefile instead of in a file that affects all the other ports? * * It can't be done as special target. I'm saying, couldn't you define a do-configure target in the ncftp2 port to do that? * It not affects other ports if you don't set CONFIGURE_ENV * variable directly. * * >(3) If not, should this go int 2.1R? * * It will be nice, if goes. You just created an inconsistency between the ports tree and bsd.port.mk. If this change doesn't go in, then the ncftp2 port won't compile correctly. Also, I have a lot of problems with your modifications to bsd.port.mk (not just this one), there are so many little hacks in the configure parts that it's almost impossible to tell heads and tails. I'll have to revamp this after the release. * >(4) If yes, this is the list of ports I already built with the "old" * > bsd.port.mk, can you please go check and see if they will all * > build and package fine with the modified bsd.port.mk? * * They all build with new bsd.port.mk. * It not affects any ports. How do you know? The only way to be sure is to compile all ports, you know. * If you simple look at my change in bsd.port.mk (2 lines affected), you'll * have less questions about it. I did, it looks harmless enough, but I've seen real innocent-looking changes break some ports in the most weird ways. Well, seems like David just pulled this in to the 2.1 branch, and I'm going to rebuild all the packages after the make world anyway, so I'll let this one slip by. But please don't touch bsd.port.mk without asking me first, ok? You are making my life much harder, a simple e-mail message won't hurt, don't you think so? Satoshi