Macros? ... was patching in general

markd at macports.org markd at macports.org
Fri Feb 13 12:16:50 PST 2009


>> Well I've never used Portage, but I have looked at their portfiles
>(emerge
>> or whatever they are called) sometimes in the past to check out how
>their
>> port authors did a given port, or to see if they had useful patches.
> All
>> I can say is that I remember they have 'dodoc' and 'dobin' (seems like
>> they could've used better names), which I think installs the given files
>> into the standard doc and bin locations.  That's really all I know about
>> it.
>
>I don't know that much about ebuilds in portage in detail although I
>already used it. If dobin and dodoc simply copy the file over without
>additional logic, these would just be aliases for xinstall in our case:
>
>dobin: xinstall -m 755 foo ${destroot}${prefix}/bin
>dodoc: xinstall -m 644 foo ${destroot}${prefix}/share/doc/${name}
>
>We could create such aliases if there is really a need for it. Most
>ports simply use the 'make install' of the software anyway and we
>already have a much more general approach with xinstall.
>
>But if we are going to do it, I don't like these names do* very much, I
>think xinstall-bin/xinstall-doc would be better. Do you think we need
>something like this at all?
>
>Rainer 

Hi Ranier,

I think that jberry had said some macros were desireable at one point, and
I had thoudht the portage 'dodoc' & 'dobin' were good examples of this,
except for the naming.  But I'm not sure of that.  I suppose we should see
what others think.  Or maybe if we are going to do macros, we should think
about what would be the most important ones.

Mark



More information about the macports-dev mailing list