tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]


On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:31:39AM +0100, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
 > > I use sometimes, but I often wonder whether anyone reads
 > > and reviews the hacks to make sure they're still valid.
 > > 
 > > Should we move to putting such hacks in the main Makefile so people
 > > can review them, for example, while updating packages to determine
 > > if they're still relevant?
 > Personally I absolutely hate them, and would love to see them go away.
 > Things like this:
 > end up hidden for many years.
 > Just put them in Makefile, where the chances that someone will spot that
 > the above disables optimisations for e.g. clang because it doesn't limit
 > the checks to PKGSRC_COMPILER:Mgcc, are vastly improved.

I kinda disagree, on the grounds that putting them in their own file
is supposed to _increase_ the visibility.

Maybe it would be better to stop making automatic so it has
to be listed in the Makefile, and maybe also have pkglint expect a
comment attached to that include?

Also maybe there should be more guidance about what constitutes a
hack. I don't see any reason for the stuff currently in pixman's to be there. On the other hand, most of what's in the
audacious-plugins seems like it belongs.

I think it should be restricted to things that are hacks at the pkgsrc
level, as opposed to e.g. blunt workarounds for build problems that
are the package's fault.

David A. Holland

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index