Subject: Re: databases.mk (new mk for packages using
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv@menta.net>
From: Juan RP <juan@xtraeme.unixbsd.org>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/10/2004 10:14:55
--Signature=_Thu__10_Jun_2004_10_14_55_+0200_=l/O9D2Or/N2YXJw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:54:06 +0200
"Julio M. Merino Vidal" <jmmv@menta.net> wrote:
> It seems to me it could be better to have a "version.mk" makefile in
> databases/postgresql and another one in databases/mysql (no need to be in
> mk/; it has already a lot of files...), similar to what the python
> packages do.
>
> Even though... for what grant suggested, like having exim3 use different
> databases (through USE_DB="mysql postgresql"), a file in mk makes sense
> (because it's providing a "general abstraction" for database support).
>
> If done this way, mk/databases.mk could simply need to inspect the variable
> value and then include databases/{mysql,postgresql}/version.mk depending on
> it. And the file in mk/ could only be used by packages accepting _both_
> databases. Packages using only one could simply include the right version.mk
> directly...
Ok, I'll create the two version.mk files for postgresql and mysql for now. I
thought that one file could be easier to maintain, but probably I was wrong.
Last question, should the version.mk file have a variable to specify the default
package version? (like DB_PGSQL_DEFAULT in databases.mk) or just to use
the installed package?
--
Juan RP <juan@xtraeme.unixbsd.org>
--Signature=_Thu__10_Jun_2004_10_14_55_+0200_=l/O9D2Or/N2YXJw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)
iD8DBQFAyBh/ypkLYVDran0RAmm/AJ4poJ9M6sJsYV+HEugzLhZ9wvZ/DACeKvrD
R9gOuKldz0/YEAnWS9aBemk=
=rJkt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Signature=_Thu__10_Jun_2004_10_14_55_+0200_=l/O9D2Or/N2YXJw--