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

Re: patching so we don't need gmake



Nick Nauwelaerts <nick_(_at_)_wanadoo_(_dot_)_be> wrote:

> Is it worthwhile to provide patches to a port so we don't need to use
> gmake anymore?

Depends.

Some projects explicitly rely on gmake for a powerful build environment
across platforms.  Rewriting those for BSD make would be excessive and
ultimately futile.

Many projects rely on automake.  Occasionally, some manually created
makefile fragments contain (accidental) gmakeisms.  Since automake's
whole raison d'être is to provide powerful make features while
staying strictly portable, such problems are invariably bugs that
should be fixed and reported to the upstream maintainers.

Some ports fall somewhere on the spectrum between those endpoints,
so you'll have to weigh the pros and cons.  How much work will be
required to get rid of gmake-specific constructs?  Are there portable
alternatives?  How likely is it that the upstream maintainer will
accept the changes?

> Also, since we now use make all the way, we can use BINMODE and the
> like.

Better use the complete BSD_INSTALL_* macros.

> Should this also be patched in the ports Makefile or should I add
> a do-install: target in the master Makefile?

I usually handle it like this:  If we already need to patch the
Makefile for some other reason, we can also fix the install target
there.  Otherwise, do-install.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy_(_at_)_mips_(_dot_)_inka_(_dot_)_de



Visit your host, monkey.org