Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:25:41 +0100 From: Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal for Authors / Vendors in ports Message-ID: <5285DA85.3040008@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <5285CC00.6010800@FreeBSD.org> References: <5283E4A0.6090107@pcbsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1311132124560.48376@fire.magemana.nl> <CAF6rxgmdewA=jtWL-8dyGrzSFTkxM2P8jWDYYcXr4BXOEdgx_w@mail.gmail.com> <20131114073008.GG90670@droso.dk> <9D6E2358-4750-41D5-9B8C-F638C8B1E351@xs4all.nl> <CAF6rxgkJzj7YbBEuxOhTdMmb0NwZsgN-08OuMacT2ad%2BP=wSuQ@mail.gmail.com> <5285CC00.6010800@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 15.11.2013 08:23, schrieb Matthew Seaman: > On 15/11/2013 00:54, Eitan Adler wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis >> <jaapna@xs4all.nl> wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 8:30, Erwin Lansing <erwin@freebsd.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> That sounds like an excellent idea. I'm just a bit worried >>>> about spreading the information over too many places, and >>>> would rather split content from logic and add these to >>>> pkg-descr as well next to the current WWW. I know we're not >>>> consistent already with things like COMMENT and LICENSE >>>> already in the Makefile, so won't ojbect too much to where >>>> these end up. >>> >>> Apart from spreading this information into to many places >>> (pkg_desc seams a proper place to have such information), why >>> have the Makefile double up as a database? >> >> pkg_descr is free form. Makefiles are parsable (make -V). > > pkg_descr is only as free-form as we define it to be. It's a lot > quicker to parse out the WWW entry from pkg_descr than it is to > run 'make -V' to extract values from port Makefiles. That's > because make includes and parses a whole stack of different files > from /usr/ports/Mk and elsewhere and does a bunch of other > processing -- takes about 200ms per port just to print out the > variables used in the INDEX. > > So, unless the variable is needed as part of the build process for > a port putting it in pkg_decr makes sense to me. This could > include some well-known values like MAINTAINER if we want to go > that far. Two comments: 1) I think that pkg-descr contains information about the ported software, not the port. I.e. the web-site, the organisation, or the license are good candidates for pkg-descr. The maintainer or other information that does not relate to the ported software itself but just to how it is managed in the FreeBSD ports tree should be kept in some other place. (IMHO) 2) If meta-information is moved to pkg-descr, it might be worthwhile to add some knowledge about formats and restrictions to portlint. Regards, STefan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5285DA85.3040008>