Subject: Re: python makefile stuff
To: Johnny C. Lam <email@example.com>
From: David Brownlee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/08/2001 17:49:38
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Johnny C. Lam wrote:
> > a) If a makefile fragment is intended to be included outside
> > the package we should probably standardise on Makefile.inc
> > and document such in Packages.txt
> There are only a handful of such packages in pkgsrc, and we can't
> standardize what variables and targets such a Makefile.inc would
> provide because each package requires different things. Rather than
> pretend all of these files are alike, we shouldn't try to force some
> common name on them.
I was not thinking of standardising targets and variables (though
some suggested defaults might not be a bad idea), just recommended
'included Makefile name'.
We seem to use Makefile.common and Makefile.inc quite a lot, and
at least one Makefile.module. We should either pick one (or two),
or document the difference.
> > b) Should we look a pulling out the perl magic from bsd.pkg.mk
> > into a lang/perl/Makefile.inc?
> I'm looking into upgrading perl to 5.6.1, and this is one of the ideas
> I'm currently pursuing.
Great news :) - would it make sense to pull perl-mk in at the
David/absolute -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --