svn commit: r415078 - in head: . Mk

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 01:33:36PM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> On 5/21/2016 1:27 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:23:06PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >> ...
> >> I'm still not convinced though, sorry.  Ports tree can be obtained by
> >> a number of means, but this new ugly TIMESTAMP thingy is added for a
> >> very specific usecase, and there should be no problem to require that
> >> for that particular usecase, exported ports tree must have its files'
> >> mtimes correctly set.  (If svn/git/hg are not setting right mtimes on
> >> export, they should be fixed.)  It looks more like quick'n'dirty hack
> >> rather than thoroughly thought-out solution.
> >
> > Given lack of replies, I guess I'd have to elaborate a bit on problems with
> > TIMESTAMP and why I'm against it.
> >
> > 1. It does not line up with distinfo format...
> > 2. It is not needed even if ports repo is obtained as tarball...
> 
> Maybe it could/should be implemented as a makefile variable instead?
> 
> e.g. REP_TIMESTAMP=
> 
> Just a suggestion.  I don't disagree with you.

While still hackish, it's a *lot* less ugly and bogus as tainting distinfo.
(New variable in Makefile is OK because that's what Makefiles are made of:
variables, targets, and recipes.  Adding TIMESTAMP to distinfo is NOT OK
because distinfo describes port's distfiles in a form of FOO(), BAR(), ...
values per each distfile.)

./danfe