[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
pkg/COMMENT vs. COMMENT in Makefile
- To: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: pkg/COMMENT vs. COMMENT in Makefile
- From: Marc Espie <espie_(_at_)_schutzenberger_(_dot_)_liafa_(_dot_)_jussieu_(_dot_)_fr>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:13:03 +0200
- Mail-followup-to: Marc Espie <espie_(_at_)_schutzenberger_(_dot_)_liafa_(_dot_)_jussieu_(_dot_)_fr>, ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Reply-to: Marc_(_dot_)_Espie_(_at_)_liafa_(_dot_)_jussieu_(_dot_)_fr
We do prefer COMMENT in Makefile, for several reasons.
- less waste. A supplementary file that holds just one line takes as
long to manage as a longer file with CVS. And as long to detar. And as
much room in an archive.
- more centralized information. The Makefile is what you look at when
you scrutinize a port. It becomes easier to verify that comments are
crisp, which too often does not happen by magic...
- `stub' ports that stay around as place-holders, once the main thingy
has been integrated in the source tree, can have a full index entry
without needing more than a small Makefile.
- it's easier to tweak make variables than COMMENT files, and COMMENT files
easily become hell for vastly multi-packaged ports.
However, the transition can go smoothly. Removing COMMENT files is not
a priority, it is just something you do when you update ports, or submit
I've tried reasonably hard to tweak bsd.port.mk so that both styles can
work, and so that we can do the transition peacefully.
While I'm at it, flavor and subpackage dependencies are coming. The
prototype is working just fine here. I did fix quite a few brain-dead
typos of mine however, and there are probably some still lurking.