Subject: Re: WRKSRC's position in Makefiles, and pkglint
To: None <>
From: Alistair Crooks <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 01/19/2004 16:38:36
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:00:16PM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:49:33PM +0000, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> > You missed out the other point I made about your specifying exceptions
> > to a rule, and then using the default for the rule to justify the
> > placement next to a variable which is often not used. Quite why
> > 
> > 
> > needs to go next to the MASTER_SITES definition is beyond me, but
> > maybe I'm just getting old.
> Ok, then please explain why exactly the CATEGORIES line should be up
> there. It might as well be in the MAINTAINER section.
> Or PKGNAME. What does it have to do with the distribution?
> Nothing, it's our chosen name for registering the package,
> which just happens to coincide with DISTNAME sometimes.

PKGNAME and CATEGORIES have to do with binary package creation, but
I guess you knew that.

However, the question still stands - why is "WRKSRC=${WRKDIR}" related
to definitions governing distfiles and binary packages?
But somehow I sense I'm not getting through to you - are my points

> I think you are applying too strict reasoning to something that
> hasn't been defined strictly at all.

Perhaps I am. But if that's the case, mere laissez faire is not
the way to proceed, and so I am trying to better the situation.
I cannot see why this should generate such resistance.
> And really, the whole discussion is silly.

I disagree completely - I have always tried to make pkgsrc consistent,
useful, and the package Makefiles to be pleasing on the eye.  (I admit
that I didn't quite manage it with EVAL_PREFIX, but the functionality
is the important thing with that).  When I find something that I think
is ugly, I'd like to clean it up, which is what I'm doing here.  I
don't consider that to be silly in any way.

> Define a place where this fits according to your definitions, document
> it, and I'll probably fix pkglint to follow it. I'll leave it up to you,
> or anyone else who wants, to fix the packages to follow that order then.

It's OK, thanks - I'll fix pkglint for this, and I'll also fix all the
package Makefile fallout.

Alistair Crooks <>