Re: sed/${SED} and pax/${PAX}

["D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:25:53 +0100
Roland Illig <rillig%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote:
> NOTE: autocue/Makefile:18: You can write "cp" instead of "${CP}".
> 
>          The wrapper framework from pkgsrc takes care that a sufficiently
>          capable implementation of that tool will be selected.

Will this always be true for all tools for all systems that we port to
or will we one day start getting messages that pax/sed/cp needs to be
changed to the alternate versions because we have ported pkgsrc to a
really odd system?

> 
>          Calling the commands by their plain name instead of the macros
>          is only available in the {pre,do,post}-* targets. For all other
>          targets, you should still use the macros.

This seems confusing.  I would rather see consistiency.

> In the case of the less frequently used tools, it may happen sometimes 
> that the tool variable is not defined (especially when the tool is not 
> added to USE_TOOLS). The plain command even works in that case.
> 
> I changed that at 2006-07-22. Looking at the tech-pkg archive, I don't 
> find a discussion about this. My reasons for doing that change were:
> 
> 1. What do we have the tools framework for when we don't use it?
> 2. I don't like uppercase letters.
> 3. Writing "cp" instead of "${CP}" is easier.

Couldn't we at least accept that some people prefer the consistiency
and just drop the note?  Is it so bad to accept either?  I realize that
either is accepted now but I don't like messages in lint.  If I am
doing the correct or acceptable thing the lint tool should be quiet.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy%NetBSD.org@localhost>
http://www.NetBSD.org/