Subject: Re: WRKSRC's position in Makefiles, and pkglint
To: Alistair Crooks <>
From: Michal Pasternak <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 01/19/2004 17:34:27
Thomas Klausner [Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:59:45PM +0100]:
> It is also set to ${WRKDIR}/foo-1.0 if the DISTNAME is foo_10 or
> something similar, but _the distfile contains a foo-1.0 dir_.
> It is not something we _choose_ for pkgsrc and which is more or
> less random. It is something that is chosen by the author for
> the distribution, and we have to handle it. It is a property of
> the distribution tarball. It could change in the next release of
> the tarball. Some packages have a different versioning structure inside
> the tarball vs. the tarball's name, and so it has to change for each
> update.

... in case my .25 matters:

Alistair, as you wrote, you prefer to have clean Makefiles -- and there is
nothing wrong with that, except when it comes to editing them (and not
actually just looking at them), having WRKSRC near DISTFILE is just handy.

What's the point of keeping code clean?

Ease of maintaineance.

What's the point of code consistency? 

Ease of maintaineance.

Will pushing WRKSRC 2 paragraphs down the Makefile make it easier for us?

We can argue which place is better fitted for WRKSRC, theoretically. But
around 6000 packages is not theory, it's reality. In reality pushing WRKSRC
some way down the Makefile won't make it any easier. Of course, it will be
more consistent, more perfect -- in theory -- but in practice, it will just
make mainteance harder.

It takes away some of ease of mainteance, it requires modyfying many
package's Makefiles. Does it bring anything good, that is worth such work?