Subject: Re: building docs on "make release"
To: None <hubert.feyrer@informatik.fh-regensburg.de>
From: Todd Whitesel <toddpw@best.com>
List: tech-install
Date: 03/01/2000 23:12:09
> IMHO "make release" should also care for putting the INSTALL.* etc. into
> the right files, for every port. If anything, etc.*/Makefile.inc should be
> able to disable this (for experimental ports that don't have docs set up
> etc.).

Yes, of course, when -current is updated that is how it should be done.

I had not submitted those particular patches yet because they aren't
needed for anything other than a complete snapshot, and I'd rather
submit something clean than what I have now. I've got my hands full
doing eight ports for 1.4.2, and it's seriously digging into my other
activities now so I really hope we are done soon :/

> Also, I wonder why I did not get a secr.tgz, though I have crypto-intl
> installed. Is this related? Do I have to set some variable for that to get
> generated?

This is one of the things that "make release" does not yet do correctly.

My solution (which I planned to propose after 1.4.2 and non-NetBSD stuff
left me some free time) is to introduce a new macro SECRDIR, much like
DESTDIR except it is only used for "cd $BSDSRCDIR/domestic && make build".

The idea is to use DESTDIR for binary/sets and SECRDIR for binary/security.
I have local patches which are being used to do all eight of my 1.4.2 ports
and as far as I can tell, it DTRT. It needs to be reviewed for cohabitation
with the other makefile features, but I think something like it will go in.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ best.com