Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:03:25 -0600 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net> To: Jason Helfman <jhelfman@e-e.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: A new and better way to do "make readmes"? Message-ID: <20120127200325.66f36090@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <20120112212905.GA78819@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> References: <20111203173149.224a64e6@cox.net> <20111214004838.GK1593@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> <20120112212905.GA78819@dormouse.experts-exchange.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've been thinking for a long time that we need a better way to do "make readmes", one that would be properly integrated into our ports Mk infrastructure, to take advantage of make's ability to recognize which files are up-to-date and which really do need rebuilding. I like to make sure my README.html files are all up-to-date after my nightly ports tree update, but with the current scheme, that means either rebuilding *all* of the files in the tree, or (as I'm doing at present) using some sort of "kludgey" (kludgy?) workaround. I haven't actually started working on such an alternative method yet, because I didn't want to dedicate the time to such an effort without first checking to see how well it might be received by portmgr. I realize this might possibly entail a less-than-trivial change to our existing ports Mk infrastructure. Would the overhead incurred in terms of additional dependency lines mean the idea would most likely be nixed right out of the gate? I'd like to think that, if properly implemented, the impact would be negligible, and the potential benefits would make it well worthwhile. Thanks for any feedback, Conrad -- Conrad J. Sabatier conrads@cox.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120127200325.66f36090>