Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:14:16 -0400 From: "Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org> To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, Johann Visagie <johann@egenetics.com>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/biology/p5-bioperl-devel Makefile ports/biology/p5-bioperl-devel/files Makefile.man Message-ID: <3B811B38.17356.624C8A0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20010820125914.H35352@bohr.physics.purdue.edu> References: <3B80F7AA.10907.599E570@localhost>; from dan@langille.org on Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 11:42:34AM -0400
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20 Aug 2001, at 12:59, Will Andrews wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 11:42:34AM -0400, Dan Langille (dan@langille.org) wrote: > > It does invoke make. But it needs all the components in order for > > make to function. > > ..which as I've told you before is not hard to do. You just need > to make a perl script to read in the primary Makefile and look > for ".include" directives then pull in the files. I don't recall you mentioning it, but I'm sure when you mentioned, I pointed this out: If I look to parse the includes, I need to compile a list of the unneeded but include'd files (e.g: bsd.port.pre.mk, bsd.port.post.mk, bsd.port.mk...). 6 of one, half a dozen of the other...etc. So either I keep track of the exceptions or I keep track of the .mk files. > Although I agree that consistency is required.. you should still > do this the right way as above... simply because things change. At present, without consistency, it seems the easiest way is for me to keep track of what breaks and then fix it. -- Dan Langille - DVL Software Limited FreshPorts - http://freshports.org/ - the place for ports To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B811B38.17356.624C8A0>