original target prints out "PCCTS 1.33MR33 installation complete", and other installation-related messages. this patch avoids this by providing do-build target. thanks to inconsistency in software's makefiles, genmk is installed from a different place now.
Once I again I have to disagree ;) You should simply remove the offending @echo from the applications Makefile instead of creating an explicit do-build-target. You are making maintenance harder, e.g. if there's an update which changes the "inner" machinery (though I think pccts is EOL). This would also avoid touching the do-install-part, right? Cheers, Volker
# vs@FreeBSD.org / 2004-05-21 11:11:09 +0200: > Once I again I have to disagree ;) You should simply remove the > offending @echo from the applications Makefile instead of creating an > explicit do-build-target. > You are making maintenance harder, e.g. if there's an update which > changes the "inner" machinery (though I think pccts is EOL). Would a patch like the one below please you more? This would clearly make maintenance harder, e. g. there's an update which changes the banner, and the patch doesn't apply anymore. Plus it's roughly 40 lines instead of 5 or 6. But this is all moot, pccts has been superceded by antlr, and doesn't seem to be developed any more. See http://www.antlr.org/ > This would also avoid touching the do-install-part, right? No it would not. The upstream makefile is... very unorthodox. --- makefile.orig Fri May 21 12:06:12 2004 +++ makefile Fri May 21 12:06:54 2004 @@ -20,41 +20,11 @@ #COPT=-O2 pccts: - @echo " " - @echo " Welcome to PCCTS 1.33MR33 installation" - @echo " " - @echo " (Version 1.33 Maintenance Release #33)" # mrxxx - @echo " " - @echo " Released 19 April 2002" - @echo " " - @echo " Featuring" - @echo " ANTLR -- ANother Tool for Language Recognition" - @echo " DLG -- DFA-based Lexical Analyzer Generator" - @echo " SORCERER -- Source-to-source translator (tree walker)" - @echo " " - @echo " http://www.antlr.org" - @echo " " - @echo " Trouble reports to tmoog@polhode.com" - @echo " Additional PCCTS 1.33 information at" - @echo " http://www.polhode.com" - @echo - @echo - @echo "To substitute gcc for CC to invoke compiler: make CC=gcc" - @echo "If there are problems with cr and lf try: unzip -a ..." - @echo -# @if [ ! -d $(BINDIR) ] ; then mkdir $(BINDIR) ; fi - @echo Making executables... (cd ./antlr; $(MAKE) CC="$(CC)" COPT="$(COPT)") - @echo antlr executable now in $(BINDIR) (cd ./dlg; $(MAKE) CC="$(CC)" COPT="$(COPT)") - @echo dlg executable now in $(BINDIR) (cd ./sorcerer; $(MAKE) CC="$(CC)" COPT="$(COPT)") - @echo sorcerer executable now in $(BINDIR) (cd ./support/genmk; $(MAKE) CC="$(CC)" COPT="$(COPT)"; mv genmk ../../$(BINDIR)) - @echo genmk executable now in $(BINDIR) - @echo - @echo " PCCTS 1.33MR33 installation complete" # MRXXX clean: (cd ./antlr; $(MAKE) -s clean) -- FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE-p2 12:07PM up 4:02, 8 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
so, what's up with this one? :)
Personally I don't think this is worth effort and future maintenance costs. I vote for just closing this PR. What do you think, Roman? -- Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz> <pav@FreeBSD.org> You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes....
# pav@FreeBSD.org / 2004-05-30 11:46:41 +0200: > Personally I don't think this is worth effort and future maintenance > costs. I vote for just closing this PR. What do you think, Roman? well, I don't like it being left to rot. either it's obsolete ballast and we jettison it or it deserves at lest minimal attention. the effort has already been expended, and given that pccts is EOL the only maintenance it requires is catching up with changes in the ports infrastructure, at least as long as it compiles. so yes, I agree we should not spend too much effort on it, but it has been easy so far. either deorbit it or give me maintainership, commit the patch, and I'll yell when it gets over my head. which may be soon as I have no use for it, and possess limited knowledge of C. or it might hum along for another few years. I don't really care what happens with the port as long as there is an action; I don't see leaving it as it is an option. -- FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE-p2 1:07PM up 2 mins, 2 users, load averages: 0.07, 0.04, 0.01
State Changed From-To: open->closed Second and part of third patch applied.