Stephen Montgomery-Smith ha scritto:
What is accepted opinion on this?
Usually these Mks starts into the relative port and when are mature and
widely used are moved into ports/Mk infrastructure.
--
Alex Dupre
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing
I am the maintainer of the octave-forge ports. These all use a file
called bsd.octave.mk.
Currently this is located in Mk. But I have noticed that many ports
have their bsd.*.mk files in one of their ports. For example,
bsd.mesalib.mk is in graphics/libGL.
What is accepted opinion on
On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 13:56:36 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
I am the maintainer of the octave-forge ports. These all use a file
called bsd.octave.mk.
Currently this is located in Mk. But I have noticed that many ports
have their bsd.*.mk files in one of their ports. For
On 3 July 2011 20:39, Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 13:56:36 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
I am the maintainer of the octave-forge ports. These all use a file
called bsd.octave.mk.
Currently this is located in Mk. But I have noticed that many ports
On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 03:39:06PM -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
As you note above, Mk scripts exist in various locations, so there
appears to be no consensus. However, I personally agree with the
sentiment in the (somewhat dated) Wiki:
On 2011-07-03 20:56, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
I am the maintainer of the octave-forge ports. These all use a file called
bsd.octave.mk.
Currently this is located in Mk. But I have noticed that many ports have
their
bsd.*.mk files in one of their ports. For example, bsd.mesalib.mk
On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 15:53:02 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
fwiw, these ideas were most alepulver's. Speaking just for myself, I
didn't agree with most of them.
Personally I'd rather see them all in Mk/; my view is that it saves a lot
of hunting around.
Sure, Mk/ or Mk/plugins; traversing
