bsd.perl.mk (Was: Re: _PERL_REFACTORING_COMPLETE lang/perl5.12 Mk/bsd.perl.mk)

[Doug Barton]

On 07/18/10 15:38, Mark Linimon wrote:
> The intention of bsd.perl.mk was to eventually allow a bunch of code
> to be pulled out of bsd.port.mk, and to have bsd.perl.mk only included
> conditionally, on the theory that it will speed up INDEX building
> somewhat.  (I have not tested for speedup).

Sounds like something that should be tested.

> The problem is that there are N ports that assume that the logic in
> bsd.perl.mk is always available.  I've tried to convince people that
> these are bugs, but OTOH if you leave out one of these definitions
> such as USE_PERL5 or PERL_CONFIGURE, and _PERL_REFACTORING_COMPLETE
> is defined, then INDEX breaks.

I'm confused. Are you saying that there are ports that try to use stuff
that's defined in bsd.perl.mk without including it? If so, that should
be fixed.

Also, how many ports are we talking about here? What is duplicated
between .mk files? Is there an easy algorithm to determine this?

> Every once in a while I try to put in patches to force N to zero, but
> then I get stuck on wierd edge cases.  This is why the switch has not
> been thrown.

Step 1:	Fix the easy cases
Step 2:	Notify maintainers of wacky edge cases (perhaps followed by a
brief delay to let them fix it themselves)
Step 2:	Disconnect broken wacky edge cases from the build
Step 3: Reconnect wacky edge cases as they get fixed

At bare minimum Step 1 should be followed immediately to avoid people
copy/pasting bad examples.

> Every time I try to work on this, "something happens" and it gets
> shoved on the back-burner for several months.  This has been going
> on for several years now ...

Then it's way beyond time you asked for help. :)  I've cc'ed perl@ in
case they are interested in this. If not, I might be.

> At this point it may be better to just do the following:
> 
>  - unconditionally include bsd.perl.mk and get rid of the code
>    duplication that is in bsd.port.mk.

Um, no. That's 100% backwards. If you're going to include it
unconditionally there is no point in having a separate file. But I don't
think that including it unconditionally is the right answer, it would be
better to fix this properly.


Doug

-- 

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

	Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
			-- Pablo Picasso