Subject: Re: Moving some script magic out of bsd.pkg.mk
To: None <email@example.com>
From: David Brownlee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/06/2000 03:45:48
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, David Brownlee wrote:
> > I was not aware of that - what did we move out?
> Documentation - packages.7.
All the documentation was in the bsd.pkg.mk file?
That seems to make it a little... uh, hard for someone to take in
> > > I know not enough about how make(1) works internally, but unless there's
> > > some hard prove this really buys us anything, i would prefer not to open
> > > this can of worms.
> > A good example could be the code to generate README.html - its one
> > shell command (with an embedded awk script), 49 lines, with no
> > comments (due to the \ restriction). We could pull that out into a
> > small, well documented shell script, which would take options on
> > the command line and/or environment.
> I still don't see the benefit there.
> This seems change for change's sake here.
> (If you feel bored, we have enough pkg related PRs open... :-)
Its aimed at making it more maintainable.
> > The gain in splitting into 'modules':
> > Scripts are easier to work on, could be run manually if wanted.
> All this is true now, too.
> And just by distributing bsd.pkg.mk into several files doesn't it make a
> smaller mess than it is right now.
I'm not suggesting we split of make logic, just the large shell
blocks we have - blocks that are made unnecessarily cumbersome
and uncommentable by having the \ restriction.
We could also gain some performance, which feels like its
gettint to be an issue.
> > The logic in the main .mk file is easier to follow.
> I don't believe that.
I think we must agree to disagree on that one :)
Hmm - maybe see what others think - I'm hapy to go with the