On Tue, 8 May 2001, Johnny C. Lam wrote:

> David Brownlee <abs@netbsd.org> writes:
> >
> > 	How about a mk/pkg.python.mk which could be included by individual
> > 	packages?
>
> This is no different from including ../../lang/python/Makefile.inc in
> individual packages.  If the argument is that Makefile.inc isn't very
> much help in creating Python module packages (to which I agree), then
> we should spend the time to improve it.

	My thought was that if we put 'common includes' in mk then it
	would be more obvious for anyone working in pkgsrc that they
	should be using them, though it probably does make more sense
	to tie them with the base packages (as is the case with python).

	Two more (somewhat related) thoughts:

	   a) If a makefile fragment is intended to be included outside
	      the package we should probably standardise on Makefile.inc
	      and document such in Packages.txt

	   b) Should we look a pulling out the perl magic from bsd.pkg.mk
	      into a lang/perl/Makefile.inc?

		David/absolute		-- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --