René J.V. Bertin
rjvbertin at gmail.com
Thu Jan 26 20:13:59 UTC 2017
On Thursday January 26 2017 12:56:51 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> I don't think anyone's ever suggested before that include files would be beneficial for portfile development, except for portgroups which are already handled.
PortGroups are exactly that (IMHO), include files, and they're very useful, but accessible to each and every port wishing to use them.
To stick with the ffmpeg-VLC example: it started as a complete copy of the 2.8.6 port:ffmpeg. Even trimmed down it's still taking up a lot of place inside VLC's Portfile, yet is still supposed to be a subport of and for the private use of VLC. It would be a lot cleaner if it could be kept completely in a separate file in the same port directory.
On Thursday January 26 2017 13:59:36 Brandon Allbery wrote:
> It got tossed around on IRC around a year and a half ago; the conclusion
> was that it was a lot of complication for very little gain.
A lot more complicated than a procedure copied from (and probably simpler than) proc PortGroup plus some additional lines in portinstall.tcl?
Re: separate files in the same port directory: I guess this kind of feature could also be obtained by considering Portfile plus Portfile.* in a port directory. It wouldn't surprise me if that were actually somewhat more straightforward to implement, too.
More information about the macports-dev