Re: hacks.mk?

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:31:39AM +0100, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
 > > I use hacks.mk... sometimes, but I often wonder whether anyone reads
 > > and reviews the hacks to make sure they're still valid.
 > > 
 > > Should we move to putting such hacks in the main Makefile so people
 > > can review them, for example, while updating packages to determine
 > > if they're still relevant?
 > 
 > Personally I absolutely hate them, and would love to see them go away.
 > 
 > Things like this:
 > 
 >   https://github.com/NetBSD/pkgsrc/blob/trunk/x11/pixman/hacks.mk#L7-L16
 > 
 > end up hidden for many years.
 > 
 > Just put them in Makefile, where the chances that someone will spot that
 > the above disables optimisations for e.g. clang because it doesn't limit
 > the checks to PKGSRC_COMPILER:Mgcc, are vastly improved.

I kinda disagree, on the grounds that putting them in their own file
is supposed to _increase_ the visibility.

Maybe it would be better to stop making hacks.mk automatic so it has
to be listed in the Makefile, and maybe also have pkglint expect a
comment attached to that include?

Also maybe there should be more guidance about what constitutes a
hack. I don't see any reason for the stuff currently in pixman's
hacks.mk to be there. On the other hand, most of what's in the
audacious-plugins hacks.mk seems like it belongs.

I think it should be restricted to things that are hacks at the pkgsrc
level, as opposed to e.g. blunt workarounds for build problems that
are the package's fault.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost