Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:46:27 +0000
From:      Thomas Sandford <freebsduser@paradisegreen.co.uk>
To:        ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: RFC: svn for make fetch
Message-ID:  <4AFED0D3.2050403@paradisegreen.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20091113200607.GA59749@atarininja.org>
References:  <a0777e080911080731w461e6733peb0a5473acf07aa8@mail.gmail.com>	<4AF897A4.3070408@delphij.net>	<20091109225232.GA34294@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>	<a0777e080911092251r3dd39303q4f309aaf4076daf@mail.gmail.com>	<4AF9B6CC.5090308@delphij.net>	<a0777e080911101228m5a576460g5946c4d1c0923012@mail.gmail.com>	<20091113011000.GA45256@atarininja.org>	<a0777e080911130000j5c8ffa33r90ad2ac387387c65@mail.gmail.com> <20091113200607.GA59749@atarininja.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:00:08AM +0200, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> Actually I was thinking of eventually adding non-svn support as well....
> 
> I don't think bloating bsd.*.mk for the most common VCS out there is a
> good idea, not to mention what happens when someone wants support for
> some oddball VCS that is not normally used?
> 
>> The reason I started on this project is because the version of mplayer in
>> ports is severely out of date. When I tried to update to port I noticed that
>> the project wants you to compile and install from svn. I also noticed a few
>> other ports that have hacks to let the maintainers "use his/her custom
>> scripts" stuck into the port's Makefile. I think it would be good if there
>> was some standardized way of solving both of these problems...
> 
> Sure, but it doesn't belong in bsd.*.mk. Turn it into a script and
> submit it as a regular port.

If it were just one port and/or just a port maintainers tool I'd agree. 
But this is something that affects MULTIPLE ports.

Surely the whole value/purpose of the ports build infrastructure is to 
present a consistent way of doing things rather than different 
maintainers doing their own thing and solving problems in different, and 
quite possibly sub-optimal ways and/or bloating multiple individual port 
Makefiles with what could be kept in a single bsd.*.mk file.

And if the file were (say) bsd.vcs.mk and were pulled in only if one of

USE_SVNFETCH
USE_CVSFETCH
USE_GITFETCH

etc were defined then the impact of the bloat on other ports is minimal.

A quick scan of ports reveals that the following contain the string "svn 
export" in their Makefile

ports/cad/kicad-devel
ports/comms/wsjt
ports/comms/wspr
ports/devel/compiler-rt
ports/devel/llvm-devel
ports/devel/thrift
ports/games/evq3
ports/games/q2pro
ports/games/freeorion
ports/games/worldofpadman
ports/net-im/cjc
ports/www/twiki
ports/www/foswiki
ports/x11-toolkits/gigi

This thread has revealed at least two further ports that use a svn 
distribution but where this is hidden from the user. That's 15 ports 
already that could be sharing common code instead of doing it 
themselves. How many do you need?

-- 
Thomas Sandford



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4AFED0D3.2050403>