Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:24:02 -0600 From: "Daniel M. Kurry" <gh@over-yonder.net> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Thinking about PORTCOMMENTS Message-ID: <20021111232402.GA2153@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <p05200f10b9f5e5d795ff@[128.113.24.47]> References: <p05200f10b9f5e5d795ff@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 06:08:34PM -0500 I heard the voice of Garance A Drosihn, and lo! it spake thus: [...] > Why should we keep trying to stuff more and more things into 'make' > variables in the Makefile for a port? I understand the advantage > of having fewer files, so we want to put more information into the > Makefile, but does that information really have to be done as > 'make' variables? How about if we did it as some kind of fake-XML? Is there any reason /not/ to put them in make variables? [...fake XML...] > Is the value of the proposed PORTCOMMENT value actually used in > any make-targets? Or is it just read by some program to generate > HTML pages? (...this is the part that I should have investigated > more...). If it is not used in any commands which are generated > by some make target, then I think it would be easier & better if > we tried some kind of "fake XML" approach. To me, a make variable sounds simpler than fake XML. One line for PORTCOMMENT versus at least two for the XML tags? dan > -- > Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu > Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021111232402.GA2153>