Subject: Re: python makefile stuff
To: Johnny C. Lam <>
From: David Brownlee <>
List: tech-pkg
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
> > 	      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 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 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
> > 	      into a lang/perl/
> 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
	same time?

		David/absolute		-- No hype required --