Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:39:20 -0400 From: Andrew J Caines <A.J.Caines@halplant.com> To: Andrew Lankford <arlankfo@141.com>, Darren Pilgrim <dmp@bitfreak.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: about /usr/ports make with options.. Message-ID: <20030823223920.GC1698@hal9000.halplant.com> In-Reply-To: <20030823144924.2f13a7c8.dmp@bitfreak.org> <200308231221.AA1156710722@141.com> References: <200308231221.AA1156710722@141.com> <20030823144924.2f13a7c8.dmp@bitfreak.org> <200308231221.AA1156710722@141.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew,
> It would be even nicer to have that functionality work in /etc/make.conf
I prefer to have system (base) and apps (ports) separated as far as
logically possible, but...
> or the ports build system instead of the imprecise "WITHOUT_3DNOW='yo'"
> trick I rely on.
..I'd be in favour of a native common make.conf type mechanism for
defining ports' make variables like MAKE_ARGS in pkgtools.conf, though I'm
reticent to suggest adding more cruft to ${PORTSDIR} and make.conf does
incorporate a fair bit of common functionality across src, ports and docs.
Even if I had real make-fu I still wouldn't like the job of doing the
separation.
Anyway, for ports pkgtools.conf is more sophisticated than make.conf and
for me the its functionality and the portupgrade tool justify the extras.
> It would also be nice to specify certain "heirarchys" of kernel modules
> that you don't want built in make.conf or your config file.
MODULES_OVERRIDE is lacking?
My small brain wobbles with the mix of positive/negative and
inclusive/exclusive (eg. NOFOO vs. NO_FOO vs. FOO=(yes|no|yo), WITH_FOO
and WITHOUT_FOO, FOO=bar and so on). I dream of a consistent case of
FOO=(yes|no), FOO+=this that, FOO-=the_other.
Automagic dependency handling and sensible defaults would of course be
required.
> Not that I'm suggesting that pkgtools should be imported into FreeBSD.
Whither ruby2perl (or better ruby2sh or even ruby2C)?
Darren said to Andrew:
> I feel just the opposite, I think pkgtools should be included, though
> it's not likely to happen.
While I love it for its functionality, I think it belongs in ports with
anything else which has baggage such as `extra' interpreters so the base
system can stay lean. The ports system itself is comparatively lean and
sophisticated so it's no real barrier to add tools like this.
-Andrew-
--
_______________________________________________________________________
| -Andrew J. Caines- Unix Systems Engineer A.J.Caines@halplant.com |
| "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary |
| safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030823223920.GC1698>