avoiding build dependency on docbook, etc. in new port

b. f. bf1783 at googlemail.com
Thu Jun 18 01:34:32 UTC 2009

Greg Larkin wrote:
>Hash: SHA1
>Charlie Kester wrote:
>> On Wed 17 Jun 2009 at 13:24:32 PDT Greg Larkin wrote:
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> Charlie Kester wrote:
>>>> I'm porting some software that has a build dependency on docbook2man in
>>>> order to generate its manpages from .docbook files.
>>>> Testing the port in tinderbox takes a long time, most of it because of
>>>> the need to build the docbook infrastructure.  It seems a shame to use
>>>> all that CPU time and install all those packages just to get ready to
>>>> convert some manpages.
>>>> What's the preferred approach in cases like this?  Should I keep the
>>>> build dependency on docbook2man et al, or should I put pregenerated
>>>> copies of the manpages in the files directory of the port?

If they are too bulky for files/, you could always compress the
manpages and add them
via something like:

DISTFILES+= thisportsmanpages.tar.gz


adding the appropriate target to install them, after placing
thisportsmanpages.tar.gz on
the FreeBSD or project servers.


>To me, that doesn't seem like a lot compared to the 100+ I was dealing
>with before.  But if it's still too many to deal with, Gabor's
>suggestion might be better.

As an example of the more economical approach that I think Gabor was
suggesting, and
which also respects NO_INSTALL_MANPAGES, see how pgj@ handled the manpage for
devel/cppcheck (incl. files/patch-Makefile ).


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list