--Signature=_Thu__10_Jun_2004_10_14_55_+0200_=l/O9D2Or/N2YXJw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:54:06 +0200
"Julio M. Merino Vidal" <jmmv@menta.net> wrote:

> It seems to me it could be better to have a "version.mk" makefile in
> databases/postgresql and another one in databases/mysql (no need to be in
> mk/; it has already a lot of files...), similar to what the python
> packages do.
> 
> Even though...  for what grant suggested, like having exim3 use different
> databases (through USE_DB="mysql postgresql"), a file in mk makes sense
> (because it's providing a "general abstraction" for database support).
> 
> If done this way, mk/databases.mk could simply need to inspect the variable
> value and then include databases/{mysql,postgresql}/version.mk depending on
> it.  And the file in mk/ could only be used by packages accepting _both_
> databases.  Packages using only one could simply include the right version.mk
> directly...

Ok, I'll create the two version.mk files for postgresql and mysql for now. I
thought that one file could be easier to maintain, but probably I was wrong.

Last question, should the version.mk file have a variable to specify the default
package version? (like DB_PGSQL_DEFAULT in databases.mk) or just to use
the installed package?

-- 
	Juan RP <juan@xtraeme.unixbsd.org>

--Signature=_Thu__10_Jun_2004_10_14_55_+0200_=l/O9D2Or/N2YXJw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFAyBh/ypkLYVDran0RAmm/AJ4poJ9M6sJsYV+HEugzLhZ9wvZ/DACeKvrD
R9gOuKldz0/YEAnWS9aBemk=
=rJkt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Signature=_Thu__10_Jun_2004_10_14_55_+0200_=l/O9D2Or/N2YXJw--