On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Hubert Feyrer wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, David Brownlee wrote:
> > 	I was not aware of that - what did we move out?
> 
> Documentation - packages.7.
> 
	All the documentation was in the bsd.pkg.mk file?
	That seems to make it a little... uh, hard for someone to take in
	:)

> > > I know not enough about how make(1) works internally, but unless there's
> > > some hard prove this really buys us anything, i would prefer not to open
> > > this can of worms.
> > 
> > 	A good example could be the code to generate README.html - its one
> > 	shell command (with an embedded awk script), 49 lines, with no
> > 	comments (due to the \ restriction). We could pull that out into a
> > 	small, well documented shell script, which would take options on
> > 	the command line and/or environment.
> 
> I still don't see the benefit there. 
> This seems change for change's sake here.
> 
> (If you feel bored, we have enough pkg related PRs open... :-)
> 
	Its aimed at making it more maintainable.

> > 	The gain in splitting into 'modules':
> > 		Scripts are easier to work on, could be run manually if wanted.
> 
> All this is true now, too. 
> And just by distributing bsd.pkg.mk into several files doesn't it make a
> smaller mess than it is right now.
> 
	I'm not suggesting we split of make logic, just the large shell
	blocks we have - blocks that are made unnecessarily cumbersome
	and uncommentable by having the \ restriction.

	We could also gain some performance, which feels like its
	gettint to be an issue.
> 
> > 		The logic in the main .mk file is easier to follow.
> 
> I don't believe that.

	I think we must agree to disagree on that one :)
	Hmm - maybe see what others think - I'm hapy to go with the
	consensus.
	

		David/absolute