[112776] trunk/dports/lang/clisp/Portfile
Daniel J. Luke
dluke at geeklair.net
Mon Nov 11 08:14:10 PST 2013
On Nov 11, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2013, at 09:58, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>>> [aside: didn't we have a proposal for more flexible platform descriptions at some point so you could just write this in a normal platform block?]
>>>
>>> Yes but it doesn’t seem that important to me since it’s exactly equivalent to an “if” statement so just write the “if” statement that you want.
>>
>> platform variants get recorded in the registry.
>
> Is that still true?
yes (at least, I have one example of a port with a platform darwin that port installed has listed with +darwin and port variants doesn't list a +darwin variant).
>> Using bare if statements also looses the (mostly) declarative nature of the portfile. Encouraging people to write portfiles this way also weakens the generally true heuristic that if you're doing this sort of thing you're doing it wrong (since you're probably writing your own version of some existing macports functionality).
>
> Meh.
really? For someone who is quick to jump on /many/ stylistic differences it's surprising that you don't care at all about the initial design philosophy ...
> I can’t find a ticket for this feature request, but here’s a related one.
>
> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/15712
IIRC kvv also proposed something (along with syntax for specifying versions in dependencies) back long before trac ;-)
--
Daniel J. Luke
+========================================================+
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
+========================================================+
| Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily |
| reflect the opinions of my employer. |
+========================================================+
More information about the macports-dev
mailing list