On 2018-10-27, at 3:52 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 17:37, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > >> No, I do not want to reintegrate the 60-some checksums into the portfile, I >> don't want to split it up and I don't want to rewrite my checksum generator >> script either. My question was how I can make the source command apply >> globally. >> >> Or if it's more politically correct, why doesn't the source command run in >> the global scope while it's perfectly possible to set variables in there - >> you don't even have to declare them global. >> >> What I'm doing isn't really all that different from how patchfiles work: >> those are also external files that aren't copied into the registry (last I >> looked, this morning) and there too this doesn't create issues because >> they're not used when running the copy from the registry. > > MacPorts used to have an include statement, but it was removed in MacPorts > 1.9.0 when we started storing Portfiles in the registry. If you want to see > how it worked, you can look at the commit where it was removed: > > https://trac.macports.org/changeset/68206 > > We could re-add it, or maybe change the source command to work how the > include command used to work. But I'm not convinced that we should do that. > There aren't many reasons why an include file would be useful, and we > evidently haven't needed it for the past 8 years. Rainer used it in a few of > his ports before it was removed; I don't think any other developers did. > > I've written a few portfiles for my own use where i use "source" for simplicity -- like my libsdl2 for PPC port, for example, where I use a totally different Portfile for PPC than for Intel, and so I source the one I want to use (stored in the files dir) from a Portfile stub. But so far there are always other ways around those tricks.. Ken
