Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:41:57 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> Cc: David Heller <dheller1@rochester.rr.com>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: stop complaining about x11 please (was: Re: Why does PORTS SUCK so BADLY!?) Message-ID: <20000505164157.A7043@mithrandr.moria.org> In-Reply-To: <20000505101401.I1642@argon.blackdawn.com>; from andrews@technologist.com on Fri, May 05, 2000 at 10:14:01AM -0400 References: <20000501105116.B32172@ccsales.com> <20000501113038.I24573@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000501234432.A2998@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <20000501150045.A391@argon.blackdawn.com> <20000502004233.A3681@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <390DDE5F.69E94C2C@rochester.rr.com> <20000501221703.A73550@mithrandr.moria.org> <20000502075626.D392@argon.blackdawn.com> <20000505100331.A2724@mithrandr.moria.org> <20000505101401.I1642@argon.blackdawn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri 2000-05-05 (10:14), Will Andrews wrote:
> No, no. You still require an xml file to become part of the repository.
Or whatever format, yes.
> But why pick a language like xml instead of make macros to express the
> options for portconf?
I don't think make(1) is the easiest way, that's all. If you can find
me an easy interface to make(1) variables from an external program
without running 'make SEPARATOR=----====----- -V MAKEVAR -V SEPARATOR -V
MASTER_SITES -V SEPARATOR -V FOO' ;)
> That is what I mean by intrusion - the XML files required to
> work with portconf would become part of the repository, and since I'm not
> sure how many people would use them, I'm not sure it's a totally awesome
> idea. So I'd like to combine the portconf and "optional dependencies"
> ideas, as I've said previously.
They're basically doing the same thing, letting you set make variables
in a useful way. portconf is the way of showing what variables are
available, "optional dependencies" is what happens when you set them.
"optional dependencies" also means what happens when you set "NNTP_ONLY"
in ports/news/tin and so forth. portconf needs to be simplified, since
before my concern was to limit the work for porters, and now my concern
is a simplistic interface. Because things suddenly got complex with
ports with WITH{,OUT}_* and define checks, I'm more happy to do a lot
less work in portconf, and let the porters do the work in their
Makefiles.
I'll simplify portconf to a bare bones on Monday, since I have African
Network Operators Group meetings this weekend. (:
> Hmm... so how do you get bsd.port.mk to source a file that doesn't exist
> (which I assume because you say "generated") ?
.if exists(FILENAME)
.include FILENAME
.endif
;)
> Well if we CAN use XML to generate the make-macros needed for using the
> options on the command line, then by all means I'll be glad to help write
> the code for this.
Actually, this might be an easier way to do it. Because portconf is
simply a means of setting variables now, we need only pass them via the
command line to make. I like the separate file idea, though, since it
makes it easier for other interfaces to customizing ports.
> If you aren't going to put portconf code in bsd.port.mk and you aren't
> going to require any modifications of a port's Makefile, then how the hell
> is portconf going to get called in the first place???
Modify bsd.port.mk to run the perl script, and keep the perl separate.
Actually, if portconf becomes as simple as I think it can be made, it
can be done in sh in bsd.port.mk for the simple case, and any other
interfaces can be defined as necessary.
portconf was never meant to be an application, just an attempt at
user-friendliness and an interface to options that are otherwise hidden
away from users.
Neil
--
Neil Blakey-Milner
Hacker In Chief, Sunesi Clinical Systems
nbm@mithrandr.moria.org
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?20000505164157.A7043>