From owner-cvs-share  Fri Apr 21 01:21:41 1995
Return-Path: cvs-share-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id BAA03157
          for cvs-share-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 01:21:41 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id BAA03151
          ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 01:21:26 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9) id BAA15192; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 01:21:23 -0700
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 01:21:23 -0700
Message-Id: <199504210821.BAA15192@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com
CC: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-share@freefall.cdrom.com
In-reply-to: <1983.798448450@freefall.cdrom.com> (jkh@freefall.cdrom.com)
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.port.mk
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=)
Sender: cvs-share-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

 * Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else see:
 * 
 *     (1) Call pre-* target (if exists)
 *     (2) Call scripts/pre-* script (if exists)
 *     (3) Call do-* target (if exists)
 *     (4) Call scripts/do-* target (if exists)
 *     (5) Call post-* target (if exists)
 *     (6) Call scripts/post-* script (if exists)
 * 
 * As slightly more consistent?  Or is this just a gratuitous addition of
 * functionality?

Well, the "if exists" test for the do-* target is not really required,
because the do-* targets are defined in bsd.port.mk itself (and you
can't undefine a target).  But you are right, it is certainly more
orthogonal to add scripts/do-*.

Although there really isn't any necessity for that...I mean, people
will override do-* if and only if they don't want something in the
default do-* targets to happen.  So, if I want to override it by a
script, I can define an empty do-* target in my Makefile and then
supply a pre-* or post-* script to do the real work.

So, I don't think it's necessary, but if people think it's more
consistent that way, I certainly won't oppose.  After all, I'm the one
who started this overhaul thing just for the sake of consistency and
orthogonality. :)

Satoshi