Re: NVidia ports overhaul

On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 8:46 PM Alexey Dokuchaev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 06:56:10PM +0900, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> > ...
> > As you may noticed, many of the conditionals are defining
> > start or end only. Conditionals defining both start and
> > end would be limited. So what I fear for now is that
> > the splits could cause additional complexities on maintainance.
>
> The incentive to maintain somewhat lengthy (and thus version-accurate
> and well-documented) `post-patch' target solely within the master port,
> keeping the slaves thin, is to 1) not to lose focus onto which patches
> are required across all branches,

Patches required for **all** branches stay in the main post-patch.
Patches required for a specific legacy branch are now residing within
corresponding slave Makefile and do not create a useless cognitive load
when looking at the main one. That was my idea.

> and 2) allow for ``make DISTVERSION=xxx.yy.zz
> -DNO_CHECKSUM'' in the master port, without the need to descend to a
> specific slave.  When I was actively maintaining nVidia ports this was
> super-helpful.

For what?