From: Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org>
Subject: Re: archivers/py-zstandard: improve tests
To: Klemens Nanni <kn@openbsd.org>
Cc: OpenBSD ports <ports@openbsd.org>, "Kirill A. Korinsky" <kirill@korins.ky>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:46:41 +0100

On 2024/10/20 15:32, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> >> +
> >> +.if ${MODPY_TEST_LINK_SO:L} == "yes" && !empty(MODPY_TEST_LIBDIR)
> >> +MODPY_TEST_TARGET := for _dir in ${MODPY_TEST_LIBDIR:S,:, ,g}; do \
> >> +	if [ -e $$$${_dir} ]; then \
> >> +		cd $$$${_dir} && \
> >> +		find . -name '*.so' -type f \
> >> +			-exec ln -sf $$$${_dir}/{} ${WRKSRC}/{} \; ;\
> >> +	fi; done; ${MODPY_TEST_TARGET}
> >> +.endif
> > 
> > Looks fine make-wise, but I lack python experience to judge the approach itself.
> > 
> > I think you can do without double-escaping and prepending the target variable
> > by using your own and using it fist, this way it looks a clearer;  diff below.
> > 
> >> +
> >> +
> >>  # dirty way to do it with no modifications in bsd.port.mk
> >>  .if empty(CONFIGURE_STYLE)
> >>  .  if !target(do-build)
> > 
> > Since that is a default-off opt-in, I'm fine committing it and tweaking in-tree.
> > 
> > Feedback or OKs for either of the two diffs?
> 
> None so far,  we'll land this in a bit unless there's objection.

Can I have a diff rather than a "either of two diffs" to look at
please?