Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:17:33 -0500 From: Ade Lovett <ade@lovett.com> To: Will Andrews <andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: USE_AUTOMAKE directive Message-ID: <20000504181733.L94890@supernews.com> In-Reply-To: <20000504173209.C373@argon.blackdawn.com>; from andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM on Thu, May 04, 2000 at 05:32:10PM -0400 References: <200005031547.AAA26484@pis.toba-cmt.ac.jp> <20000503121553.B364@argon.blackdawn.com> <20000503125203.N94890@lovett.com> <20000504173209.C373@argon.blackdawn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 05:32:10PM -0400, Will Andrews wrote: > Hmm, well, if you think they should be in there, then what about > USE_[GNOME,KDE]LIBS? That will be handled by Jeremy's optional dependency work.. > I just don't see the need for bloating bsd.port.mk with rarely-needed > variables. A while back, we had a small discussion about perhaps splitting this up into separate files, with bsd.port.mk becoming simply a "meta-port" of its own. One advantage here would be that it would be possible (though it would require thought) to have USE_* WITH_* variables, and anything else that may change as a result of a port changing (eg: a KDE shared library version number bump), separated out. "Trusted" committers (ie: those with "responsibility" for such ports), could then make changes to this file, without going anywhere near the file that (say), contains most of the real makefile logic. In addition, each file component of bsd.port.mk, being that much smaller, becomes a little more easy to understand (and perhaps optimize). -aDe -- Ade Lovett, Austin, TX. 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?20000504181733.L94890>