On Thursday January 26 2017 12:56:51 Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> I don't think anyone's ever suggested before that include files would be 
> beneficial for portfile development, except for portgroups which are already 
> handled.

PortGroups are exactly that (IMHO), include files, and they're very useful, but 
accessible to each and every port wishing to use them.

To stick with the ffmpeg-VLC example: it started as a complete copy of the 
2.8.6 port:ffmpeg. Even trimmed down it's still taking up a lot of place inside 
VLC's Portfile, yet is still supposed to be a subport of and for the private 
use of VLC. It would be a lot cleaner if it could be kept completely in a 
separate file in the same port directory.

On Thursday January 26 2017 13:59:36 Brandon Allbery wrote:
> It got tossed around on IRC around a year and a half ago; the conclusion
> was that it was a lot of complication for very little gain.

A lot more complicated than a procedure copied from (and probably simpler than) 
proc PortGroup plus some additional lines in portinstall.tcl?

Re: separate files in the same port directory: I guess this kind of feature 
could also be obtained by considering Portfile plus Portfile.* in a port 
directory. It wouldn't surprise me if that were actually somewhat more 
straightforward to implement, too.

R

Reply via email to