Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 16:37:06 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=) Cc: jmz@freefall.cdrom.com, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: XFree86 Makefile Message-ID: <6988.798593826@freefall.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 22 Apr 95 14:12:00 PDT." <199504222112.OAA24823@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * BTW: what about my suggestion to move @${MAKE} ${.MAKEFLAGS} fake-pkg
> * out of the do-install target? (If not I will have to make another pass
> * through the print directory, since I missed this feature...)
>
> I'm not sure what to do about this, I sent out a question to "ports"
> but got no response. Maybe I'll ask again. (See CC: )
>
> What do people think about this? I'm in favor of leaving it in
> do-install, for the sake of orthogonality (all the "main" targets look
> exactly the same now). But I understand Jean-Marc's point that we
> shouldn't let porters worry about internal details.
I think we should put it into the framework. It's a "magic feature"
that users and ports hackers shouldn't need to know about. Over time,
it will change and mutate and I *really* won't want users and ports
hackers knowing about it. They might otherwise start making
assumptions about it!
Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6988.798593826>