Subject: pkg/21747: devel/SDL/buildlink2.mk has redundant .include's
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 06/01/2003 10:43:48
>Synopsis: devel/SDL/buildlink2.mk has redundant .include's
>Arrival-Date: Sun Jun 01 14:45:00 UTC 2003
>Originator: Todd Vierling
>Release: NetBSD 1.6.1_STABLE
DUH.ORG: Pointing out the obvious since 1994.
System: NetBSD netbsd.int.duh.org 1.6.1_STABLE NetBSD 1.6.1_STABLE (TODD) #0: Fri May 30 15:13:58 EDT 2003 firstname.lastname@example.org:/export/SRC/duh/netbsd-kernels/TODD i386
devel/SDL/buildlink2.mk .include's all of SDL's own dependencies. This is
wrong, because SDL already pulls these in (and dependencies of SDL don't
give a damn what dependencies it pulls in).
This is starting to look like a disturbing trend. I've said this before
and I'll say it again here: A PACKAGE SHOULD ONLY PULL IN THE
DEPENDENCIES IT NEEDS, AND NO MORE. This has the added implication that a
buildlink2.mk should, in almost all cases, refer ONLY to the package
directory in which that buildlink2.mk resides (and generic stuff in mk/).
Adding a bunch of .include's to a buildlink2.mk only complicates the build
and packaging process, and makes it very difficult for someone to pull out
a single dependency in a local pkgsrc tree. (Case in point: I have to
edit two places to take ESD support out of SDL -- when I should be able to
do this by editing only SDL's Makefile.)
RCS file: /pub/NetBSD-CVS/pkgsrc/devel/SDL/buildlink2.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -r1.6 buildlink2.mk
--- buildlink2.mk 2003/05/02 11:54:18 1.6
+++ buildlink2.mk 2003/06/01 14:39:02
@@ -19,15 +19,6 @@
-. include "../../audio/nas/buildlink2.mk"