On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 12:08:49PM +0100, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Nikolay Sturm wrote: > >I don't only do that, I actually think it does have a benefit. From my > >experience it is much easier reviewing a port that follows some > >pre-defined structure than having none whatsoever. We have KNF in src > > I totally concure. It makes reviewing way easier. > If the template is wrong, it should be fixed IMHO instead of > ignored/removed.
Well, it's kind of funny that both of you (Nikolay and Antoine) made typos in your emails, between Makefilte and concure... I have a good reason to not like that template too much. It becomes easy to believe that porting some stuff is just that: filling in the right fields in a template. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Most of the time. In some cases, that template makes it really hard to write a port in a clean way, if you follow it too closely. It also does not replace actually reading thru the port, and all that. But you know that. And you also know I never follow the template. There are a lot of things that are in the wrong place in it, or just fuzzy. FLAVORS should come in way higher. overrides like PKG_ARCH or WRKSRC or ALL_TARGET are completely badly placed. SHARED_LIBS should come after categories.... This used to be documentation. Now that stuff is documented in bsd.port.mk, it's only useful to get beginners started. And there you have the problem: either it's documentation to jump-start beginner, and then it exposes stuff in an order that's easy to comprehend. Or it's a template you want to follow for new ports, and then the current order is just plain obnoxious. You can't have both.
