Re: Moving mk.conf

[Jean-Yves Migeon <jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost>]

On 15.12.2010 00:58, David Holland wrote:
>[snip]
> We came up with three proposals for fixing the above issues and moving
> forward. These assume that the base system config remains "mk.conf"
> and that we'll call the pkgsrc config "pkgsrc.mk.conf" - obviously the
> mechanisms are independent of the exact names.
> 
> (1)
> 
>  - Take the definitions from bsd.own.mk that are relevant to/wanted in
> pkgsrc (which isn't too many AFAICT) and move them to bsd.prefs.mk or
> some other file in pkgsrc/mk.
>
> (2)
> 
>  - Do the same, but instead of pkgsrc.conf.mk, have bootstrap compile
> a __MAKECONF__ variable into make.
> 
>  - Then have bsd.prefs.mk check if it's defined; if so set MAKECONF
> from it, and if not use the file from /etc.
> 
> This is both more and less tidy; on the one hand, it avoids installing
> the extra file, but on the other hand, compiling stuff into make is
> ugly. However, it means that bootstrap-mk-files still needs to bake in
> directory config, which is less desirable.
> 
> (3)
> 
>  - Put pkgsrc.mk.conf in the root of the pkgsrc tree, or in
> pkgsrc/conf or some such place. Then it can always be found without
> needing any path configuration whatsoever. For bootstrapped installs
> it can safely contain the complete path configuration.
> 
> The downside is that it doesn't allow avoiding baking paths into
> bootstrap-mk files. Also, it complicates the lives of people who use
> one pkgsrc tree with multiple separate $(PREFIX)es.
>
>[snip]
>
> Of these I think the best approach is some mixture of #1 and #3; that
> is, bootstrap should proceed as per #1, but I think explicitly
> supporting having config in the build tree as well is desirable.

I am also in favor of combining #1 and #3. #3 + possibility of having
multiple PREFIXes and keep one pkgsrc source tree. IMHO, the config file
should reside in PKGSRCDIR/conf.

> The other choice, of course, is doing nothing, as the extant problems
> aren't really that serious.
>
> (I'd also like to make a token protest in favor of having config files
> that aren't Turing-complete, but this currently isn't realistic.)

Well, that rules out "Makefiles as config files" then...

-- 
Jean-Yves Migeon
jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost