Re: NVidia ports overhaul

On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:04:22PM +0300, Gleb Popov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 8:46???PM Alexey Dokuchaev 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.

I was making the opposite argument: having all that patching in one
place helps to see the whole picture while spreading it across several
Makefiles actually increases if not cognitive, but certainly maintainer
workload.

> > 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?

To simplify testing of new feature branches and beta driver versions.
It's described in the x11/nvidia-driver/Makefile header.

./danfe