Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

Approve the addition of Mk/Uses/alias.mk
ClosedPublic

Authored by marino on Oct 15 2014, 12:51 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F100865452: D950.diff
Sun, Oct 20, 11:41 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Oct 12, 3:37 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Oct 10, 12:21 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 15 2024, 6:17 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 8 2024, 11:57 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 8 2024, 10:27 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 8 2024, 4:52 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 1 2024, 10:33 AM
Subscribers
None

Details

Reviewers
bapt
Group Reviewers
portmgr
Commits
rP371239: Add Mk/Uses/alias.mk
Summary

There are many DPorts that have a one-line Makefile.DragonFly with the contents "CFLAGS+= -DFreeBSD=9" or similar.

For the purposes of reducing differences between ports and dports, I propose a new USES tool (alias) that is ignore if OPSYS == FreeBSD. It normally has no arguments, but it will accept 8,9,10, or 11 as an argument to define the major release.

Is there any heartache regarding this approach? It is pretty clean for FreeBSD I think.

Diff Detail

Repository
rP FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Tests Skipped

Event Timeline

marino retitled this revision from to Approve the addition of Mk/Uses/alias.mk.
marino updated this object.
marino edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
marino added a reviewer: bapt.

that you will spread USES=alias over the ports tree or keep it in dports? I mean what is your plan with that new USES=alias

Yes, I'd want to use it in ports and remove the extra files from dports.
This technique isn't used that much, we aren't talking 100's here.

It looks like this could potentially affect ~70 ports

Dumb question why not adding in bsd.port.mk or anything global specific to dports unconditionnaly

FBSDVER?= 9
CFLAGS+= -D__freeBSD__=${FBSDVER}

That way only things with specific version will need a Makefile.Dragonfly with only FBSDVER=11 for example

because defining FreeBSD on dragonfly is generally incorrect -- e.g. breaks things. It would break far more than it fixes.

Well we integrated things in base to help Debian/kFreeBSD I do not see why we should not help DPorts
This deserves also comments from other portmgr, I'm adding them

I see no objection for that one, let's wait 3 more days to give time on others to react and I will accept it if no stong objection has been raised

bapt edited edge metadata.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Oct 20 2014, 7:21 AM
marino updated this revision to Diff 2050.

Closed by commit rP371239 (authored by @marino).