svn commit: r382492 - head/Mk/Uses

[Eitan Adler]

On 28 March 2015 at 08:54, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 3/28/2015 9:50 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> Author: bapt
>> Date: Sat Mar 28 14:50:22 2015
>> New Revision: 382492
>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/382492
>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r382492/
>>
>> Log:
>>   Add USES=metaport to simplify writing metaports
>>
>> Added:
>>   head/Mk/Uses/metaport.mk   (contents, props changed)
>>
>> Added: head/Mk/Uses/metaport.mk
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- /dev/null 00:00:00 1970   (empty, because file is newly added)
>> +++ head/Mk/Uses/metaport.mk  Sat Mar 28 14:50:22 2015        (r382492)
>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
>> +# $FreeBSD$
>> +#
>> +# Sets the default variables to handle metaports
>> +#
>> +# Feature:   metaport
>> +# Usage:     USES=metaport
>> +#
>> +# Take no arguments
>> +
>> +.if !defined(_INCLUDE_USES_METAPORT_MK)
>> +_INCLUDE_USES_METAPORT_MK=   yes
>> +
>> +MASTER_SITES=        #
>> +DISTFILES=   #
>> +EXTRACT_ONLY=        #
>> +NO_BUILD=    yes
>> +NO_INSTALL=  yes
>> +NO_MTREE=    yes
>> +
>> +.endif
>>
>
> Now that I quickly flew past this, I think these should all be ?=. I've
> had to make meta ports at work that did include 1 few files. I know they
> are not quite technically "meta packages" at that point but IMHO they
> still qualify. I'm not strong on this opinion though.

-1 on making them ?=.  IMHO a 'metaport' should be a strong
abstraction, not just set a set of defaults.


-- 
Eitan Adler
Source, Ports, Doc committer
Bugmeister, Ports Security teams