Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:09:22 +0000 From: Thomas Sandford <freebsduser@paradisegreen.co.uk> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: svn for make fetch Message-ID: <4B0132E2.3020504@paradisegreen.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20091115204818.GA57571@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <a0777e080911080731w461e6733peb0a5473acf07aa8@mail.gmail.com> <4AF897A4.3070408@delphij.net> <20091109225232.GA34294@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <a0777e080911092251r3dd39303q4f309aaf4076daf@mail.gmail.com> <4AF9B6CC.5090308@delphij.net> <a0777e080911101228m5a576460g5946c4d1c0923012@mail.gmail.com> <20091113011000.GA45256@atarininja.org> <a0777e080911130000j5c8ffa33r90ad2ac387387c65@mail.gmail.com> <20091113200607.GA59749@atarininja.org> <4AFED0D3.2050403@paradisegreen.co.uk> <20091115204818.GA57571@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2009-Nov-14 15:46:27 +0000, Thomas Sandford <freebsduser@paradisegreen.co.uk> wrote:
>> Wesley Shields wrote:
>>> Sure, but it doesn't belong in bsd.*.mk. Turn it into a script and
>>> submit it as a regular port.
>> ...
>> Surely the whole value/purpose of the ports build infrastructure is to
>> present a consistent way of doing things rather than different
>> maintainers doing their own thing and solving problems in different, and
>> quite possibly sub-optimal ways and/or bloating multiple individual port
>> Makefiles with what could be kept in a single bsd.*.mk file.
>
> If it affected several hundred ports and/or was visible to the end
> user then this might be justification for embedding it into bsd.*.mk.
>
> The ports build infrastructure is already quite large (>20K LOC) and
> difficult to follow. The overheads associated with loading bsd.*.mk
> files also makes operations like "make index" very time-consuming.
> IMHO, bloating it further to marginally simplify life for the
> maintainers of ~15 ports is not a good tradeoff.
>
> Wesley's suggestion above sounds like the best solution.
>
>> And if the file were (say) bsd.vcs.mk and were pulled in only if one of
>>
>> USE_SVNFETCH
>> USE_CVSFETCH
>> USE_GITFETCH
>>
>> etc were defined then the impact of the bloat on other ports is minimal.
>
> If you still want to go this way, I'd suggest writing a stand-alone
> bsd.vcs.mk that can be .include'd by the port when it needs the
> functionality.
Personally I think the performance difference between
.ifdef USE_SVNFETCH
.include "${PORTSDIR}/Mk/bsd.vcs.mk"
.endif
in bsd.port.mk
and only explicitly including it in the ports that use it is marginal,
but I could certainly live with this as a compromise.
--
Thomas Sandford
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B0132E2.3020504>