Subject: Re: in small pieces.
To: Juan RP <>
From: Alistair Crooks <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/22/2004 12:04:41
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 12:39:07PM +0200, Juan RP wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:31:32 +0100
> Alistair Crooks <> wrote:
> > My thoughts were to take all of the non-essential targets and
> > supporting definitions/targets etc out into their own file - things
> > like print-PLIST, README, README.html etc, and only include that
> > secondary file if the target was needed.  The idea was that those
> > targets mentioned above (plus others like show-downlevel etc) are not
> > needed in the main scheme of things (and by that I mean:  fetch,
> > checksum, patch, buildlink, configure, all, install), and so don't
> > need to be in the critical path.  I did some timings on it at one
> > stage, though, and found that there was no noticeable speed-up in the
> > grand scheme of things, so I discounted it. I also mentioned this
> > at pkgsrccon2004, but I suppose it got lost in the noise.
> I thought that changing the targets like:
> .if make(foo)
> .include "../../mk/"
> foo: real-foo
> .endif
> Could improve the speed, but if you have already tried it, I'll spend my time in
> another things...
> > What you have done is great, but I don't really see the point in
> > switching out to separate files for each critical target in a main
> > build.
> Ok, so isn't there any interest on this?

No, no, like I said, I think it's great.  But it's not as big a deal
as it used to be, when we used the macro to evaluate the pre-, real-
and post- targets (and the scripts target as well).

I think there could possibly be a virtual gain to be had in splitting
up the file into two ( containing the critical path targets,
as outlined above), and containing the ancillary targets
which are not in the critical path of package building, but I'd need
to be convinced on that (and I haven't really been up until now).

BTW, I have been meaning to move the master sites definitions out
of for about 5 years, so thanks for beating me to it.