portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk

[Robert Noland]

On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 22:24 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Robert Noland wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 21:00 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
> > RW wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:40:08 -0400
> >>>> Chuck Robey <chuckr at telenix.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's
> >>>>> causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the
> >>>>> patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to
> >>>>> fix this.  Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup.
> >>>> IIRC the patch was made so that when portmanager built a port, the
> >>>> makefile would call back into  portmanager to let it modify the
> >>>> dependencies. Portmanager had a major rewrite just before the  original
> >>>> author had a row with some FreeBSD people and abandoned the project.
> >>>> AFAIK the feature wasn't yet used, so it doesn't matter if the patch
> >>>> doesn't apply since it's a null operation.
> > Ahh, I didn't realize that portmanager was moribund.  OK, I can figure out what
> > to do from here, then, thanks.  I might not like the method being used by
> > portmanager very much, but it's not worth complaining about a dead port.  Too
> > many other choices, aren't there?
> > 
> >> It's not exactly dead... I keep it running, because it is still the best
> >> available option.
> 
> Just before sending my mail, I took a look at the cvs log, last entry is from
> more than 6 months ago, unless something is somehow fubared with my archive.  If
> it sits unchanged for so long, I interpreted that as being dead, I wasn't trying
> to be insulting, maybe I made an incorrect assumption.

It wouldn't hurt it to have some love, but my other work keeps me busy.
I've had ideas of things I would like to fix or extend, but not gotten
around to it.  So, no offense taken, it mostly just works for my
purposes.

robert.

> The patch I saw in the bsd.port.mk was there in order to add in a couple of
> Makefile variables, and that just seems a really odd method to use for that
> purpose.  I don't honestly know how portmanager works, so I couldn't give any
> meaningful criticism, it just seemed so odd that I couldn't figure out the goal
> behind it.
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkm1z28ACgkQz62J6PPcoOlZNgCcC86aFuuz37IerQpV6Z081IPT
> ZrwAnRXsUgaQFnxg8WrllnAEF6DvJagF
> =7mON
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
Robert Noland <rnoland at FreeBSD.org>
FreeBSD
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20090310/9a07b3c0/attachment.pgp