From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Feb 6 02:53:13 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA22869 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 02:53:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from scotty.masternet.it (scotty.masternet.it [194.184.65.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA22864 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 02:53:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gmarco@scotty.masternet.it) Received: from suzy (modem13.masternet.it [194.184.65.23]) by scotty.masternet.it (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA07934; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 11:52:29 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from gmarco@scotty.masternet.it) Message-Id: <4.1.19990206115059.00983ce0@194.184.65.4> X-Sender: gmarco@scotty.masternet.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 12:00:52 +0100 To: Luigi Rizzo , ports@FreeBSD.ORG From: Gianmarco Giovannelli Subject: Re: Two suggestions for ports In-Reply-To: <199902060653.HAA08840@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 07.53 06/02/99 +0100, you wrote: >Also, after a bit of playing with ports, i wonder if it would be better >to have the content of files like files/MD5, and pkg/* directly into >the Makefile. > >This is based on the following motivations: > > * these files are often very short (one line or little more) > so the clutter in the Makefile because one should quote multiline > text is not significant > > * updates to the above files generally occur when the distribution > changes, so usually one has to modify Makefile as well. By putting > things in one place reduces the number of modified files and is also > a good reminder for lazy people. > > * one of the problems of the ports tree is the large number of > directories -- by putting everything in the Makefile we save a > couple of directories per port (in the frequent case when there is > nothing else than MD5 in files/) > >I think it would be fairly simple to implement the above in a backward >compatible way (use the Make variables if defined, otherwise resort to >the old file resources) > >Opinions ? (don't ask me for patches though, i don't know enough of the >various dependencies in the *mk files...) I think it's a very good idea. If I can suggest something I recomend also a keyword (not mandatory) for distfiles size (which I put in the DESCR for the few ports I made). I'd like to know before how much I am going to download before begin to "make install". Especially when I am calling my ISP from my house and with an humble 33.6 modem :-) Best Regards, Gianmarco Giovannelli , "Unix expert since yesterday" http://www.giovannelli.it/~gmarco http://www2.masternet.it To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message