Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:25:57 +0300 From: Sergei Kolobov <sergei@FreeBSD.org> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/49955: [PATCH] bsd.port.mk: add target to automatically install port documentation Message-ID: <20040128132557.GB697@chetwood.ru> In-Reply-To: <40170564.4050107@fillmore-labs.com> References: <20040127160204.GA704@chetwood.ru> <40170564.4050107@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2004-01-28 at 01:42 +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Sergei Kolobov wrote:
> >Ports that have few doc files get this:
> >
> >DOCS= file1 file2 subdir/file3
>
> this doesn't save you much compared with
>
> @cd ${WRKSRC}/doc && ${INSTALL_DATA} file1 file2 subdir/file3
> ${DOCSDIR}
Yes, that's what it is, essentially - with @${MKDIR} ${DOCSDIR}, all
wrapped in .if !defined(NOPORTDOCS).
If you find it stupid (or lazy) to add support for this in bsd.port.mk,
here's my experience: most of the 50+ ports I maintain personally, plus
many other ports I've touched recently have this construct.
I have also converted several ports to this construct in a process of
updating, etc. Moreover, the only purpose of post-install target in some
of those ports is to install docs, so the whole target is wrapped in
.if !defined(NOPORTDOCS).
Most of this ports have static DOCS lists - e.g., AUTHORS NEWS README
TODO - and just a few have occassional *.html (or similar) glob, but
none of them need to copy tons of files into DOCSDIR or create a
directory structure under DOCSDIR.
> it yould be interesting when this macro could copy hierarchies.
> Anyway, do you have a sample port the would benefit from a DOCS macro?
> I named to Java ports a examples (using javadoc, i.e. junit, java3d,
> forte, whatever) for the PORTDOCS macro, because
>
> - they have dynamically generated documentation, changing often
> - have a large, deep documentation tree
> - install the documentation themselves
> - don't always honour NOPORTDOCS
No, I don't disagree with that. In fact, I see the need for that.
All I'm saying is most of the ports I deal with are completely different
in this regard.
> Or is your point that most people are too lazy to write
>
> PORTDOCS= NEWS Changelog
>
> .ifndef NOPORTDOCS
> @${MKDIR} ${DOCSDIR}
> @cd ${WRKSRC} && ${INSTALL_DATA} ${PORTDOCS} ${DOCSDIR}
> .endif
>
> but would use
>
> DOCSSRC= NEWS Changelog
>
> instead?
Essentially, yes. It's not about laziness ;) but about convenience,
and shortening a lot of port Makefiles.
I, for one, would like to see that. ;)
> And please avoid INSTALL_DOCS, it's too similar to INSTALL_MAN.
Yes, the original version I've submitted in the PR had this bad naming
choice. I have setlled on DOCS name since then.
Again, as I mentioned in my previous message, I would like to see two
separate variables:
- DOCS: pretty much static list, allows some simple wildcards, one dir
level only
- DOCS_GLOB: dynamically generated list, uses full power of allows
liberal use of wildcards, can copy directory hierarchy.
This is your PORTDOCS today.
and corresponding USE_DOCS to specify whether you need to install the
docs automatically into DOCSDIR, or just add them to pkg-plist if
NOPORTDOCS is not set, or both.
Sergei
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040128132557.GB697>