svn commit: r392209 - in head/devel: . p5-Minilla

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 03:17:30PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 04:59:21PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:52:01PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > > I see your point.  I'm not saying that := is *always* a better way; even
> > > though I must say debugging Makefiles is pretty easy with -V FOO and @echo
> > > in recipes.  What I'm not happy with is blunt ":= is wrong, don't ever use
> > > it!" statement: it does come handy often in many cases and checking if it
> > > does the right thing is easy once you compare "make -V RUN_DEPENDS | md5"
> > > vs. "make -V BULID_DEPENDS | md5" (in addition to visual examination).
> > 
> > That is imho a too pedantic approach, pragmatism should lead and pragmatism
> > is people often misunderstand it, and most people do not understand make(1)
> > internals (I won't blame them for that, I would prefer not knowing it in the
> > first place). By people I mean both maintainers and committers if you bring
> > to the battle the back we do support 2 differents make with slightly
> > different behaviours in some part it becomes even more complicated.
> > 
> > We should promote safe syntaxes by handbook or by our own practive because
> > it will be used as example by others. that will save us from hours having
> > to clean the ports tree where things can easily break as a side effect of
> > changes in other parts of the framework.
> 
> Fair enough; even though I still stand by the "people should know their
> tools" stanza.  So I'm not openly against that change to the PHB section:
> lets make it easier for new folks to get a hold of things, no problem.
> 
> But forbidding a 100% perfectly valid, supported, and documented syntax
> used in good will and intention by an experienced developer is IMO wrong.

Given the number of times I had fixed side effect of this I bet I'm would like
to know how many people really knows how make(1) works :) in particular in that
area.

With the new way of validating dependencies (where the pattern is now also
checked after the dependency is installed, people would now quickly noticed but
before this recent change it was most of the time silent. poudriere was the only
tool able to notice that).

Best regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head/attachments/20150716/cfd2aa02/attachment.bin>