about keeping a checksums table in a separate file

René J.V. Bertin rjvbertin at gmail.com
Mon Feb 1 12:09:24 PST 2016

On Monday February 01 2016 14:15:07 Brandon Allbery wrote:

>Granting your other point, I still can't help but think that 60+ subports
>is Doing It Wrong somewhere along the way. Perhaps KF5 should be a
>PortGroup instead?

A PortGroup that provides as many KF5 frameworks as the current Portfile does (together they're the equivalent of "kdelibs5")? There is already a KF5 PortGroup that contains the definitions needed by KF5 ports (like the KDE4 PortGroup) and also a number of routines to make writing KF5 Portfiles easier.

The reason that I bundled all KF5 frameworks in a single Portfile is that this way they can share certain patchfiles (a bit less than I'd hoped) and functions that don't really make sense even for other KF5 ports. I was afraid that it would make the Portfile unwieldy, but in the end the individual subports are all relatively simple (thanks in part to offloading quite a bit of logic for which this makes sense to the KF5 PortGroup). I consider breaking the beast up into Tier1, Tier2 etc. frameworks, but couldn't find a justification. I also like the fact that as subports, all KF5 frameworks build.dirs share a single parent directory, which is quite practical. I doubt it makes a lot of different to the end user.
As an example of a potentially non-trivial file for automatic checksum updating it is thus far from the worst (there are no subports defined in a loop for instance).


More information about the macports-dev mailing list