From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb  1 00:00:50 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6BAA016A4E2; Tue,  1 Feb 2005 00:00:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 34C4143D4C; Tue,  1 Feb 2005 00:00:48 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org)
Received: from ob.icann.org ([192.0.35.106])
          by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP
          id <2005020100004701200fb3obe>; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 00:00:47 +0000
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:00:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org>
To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <41FEC61F.6000309@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20050131155701.U1177@ync.qbhto.arg>
References: <20050131143802.X1177@ync.qbhto.arg>
	<41FEC61F.6000309@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/
X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Proposed patch to inform users of fetchindex
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:00:50 -0000

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Adam Weinberger wrote:

> Doug Barton wrote:
>> I can't help but think that the majority of users try to build their own 
>> index because they don't know that there is a better alternative. What 
>> would y'all think of the following patch?
>
> I like the warning, but I don't think that making a new target is really a 
> good thing. I think that printing the warning message at the beginning of a 
> 'make index' is better than having 'make index' not result in any INDEX 
> whatsoever.

Another way to approach it would be:

Index: Makefile
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/pcvs/ports/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.90
diff -u -r1.90 Makefile
--- Makefile	17 Dec 2004 11:23:22 -0000	1.90
+++ Makefile	31 Jan 2005 23:59:53 -0000
@@ -66,8 +66,12 @@
  .include <bsd.port.subdir.mk>

  index:
+.if !defined(I_REALLY_MEAN_IT)
+	@${ECHO} 'Warning'
+.else
  	@rm -f ${.CURDIR}/${INDEXFILE}
  	@cd ${.CURDIR} && make ${.CURDIR}/${INDEXFILE}
+.endif

  fetchindex:
  	@cd ${.CURDIR} && ${FETCHINDEX} ${MASTER_SITE_INDEX}/${INDEXFILE}.bz2 && bunzip2 -f ${INDEXFILE}.bz2 && chmod a+r ${INDEXFILE}


Or similar ... It's the general concept I want to get across here, the 
implementation is a SMOP.

Doug

-- 

     This .signature sanitized for your protection