From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 21 19:51:17 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7EF16A4CE for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:51:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com (mailout05.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.82]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCA543D1F for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:51:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from fwd00.aul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1Cs4oN-0001Pa-05; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:51:15 +0100 Received: from Andro-Beta.Leidinger.net (rIHcBBZcwe-ZgV7CH-4v32yjwgEKTyU6CMCFp5pZ5tu1NDMDkk2U40@[84.128.195.53]) by fmrl00.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 1Cs4oL-0sWdGa0; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:51:13 +0100 Received: from Magellan.Leidinger.net (Magellan.Leidinger.net [192.168.1.1]) j0LJoDLs060889 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:50:14 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:52:02 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050121205202.4092fc5a@Magellan.Leidinger.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd6.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ID: rIHcBBZcwe-ZgV7CH-4v32yjwgEKTyU6CMCFp5pZ5tu1NDMDkk2U40@t-dialin.net X-TOI-MSGID: 0f823029-de59-469e-966b-fdcf9acd8c02 Subject: Why does everybody switch to dynamic plists? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:51:17 -0000 Hi, can someone please tell me why people enjoy to use dynamic plists, even when there was a static plist already? With a dynamic plist: - We lose the ability to search for files which aren't installed. (useful for users) - We lose the ability to determine if a particular port contains what we search. (useful for users) - We lose the ability to check just with grep if two ports install conflicting files (in case we get a report of a conflict it's very nice to not need to install a port to verify the conflict). (useful for users and port developers) - We lose the ability to use portlint to check the plist (if the maintainer checks the generated one he just can use a static plist). BTW.: Does portlint know how to check the embedded plist (the Makefile variables)? (useful for port developers) - We lose the ability to maybe answer support requests without the need to install the software. (useful for "the frontliners") + We don't need to take care if the plist changes. (useful for port developers) I count 1 positive and 5 negative aspects. If the developer of a port puts the dynamic plist generation into a Makefile target instead of inlining it into the build/install process, he doesn't needs to put alot more effort into the development process (just one "make ") and gets the benefits of static plists too. Maybe I've overlooked something, but so far I haven't seen a dynamic plist which needs to be a dynamic one. So I think at least 99% of our dynamic plists don't need to be dynamic. Bye, Alexander. -- The computer revolution is over. The computers won. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7