Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:27:35 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 194312] games/minecraft-server issues after update to 1.8 Message-ID: <bug-194312-13-FpfzDTGK0W@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-194312-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-194312-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194312 --- Comment #8 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Helge Oldach from comment #7) > Exactly. For some reasons the maintainer decided to install blank > configuration files instead of meaningful content with the 1.8 port > revision. At least, for server.properties it would really be sensible to > install some pre-configured content. This was the case for the previous port > revision. No idea why it was changed. Install blank sample files seems absurd to be, let's pull this out completely. > Yes, these blank config files are ugly, however I felt it would be more > sensible to make use of existing pkg logic rather than bloating Makefile > with in-line scripts. I'm not following. Just remove the files, right? > > > 2) It looks like the next line was intended to be > > ${LN} -s ${ETCDIR}/${file} ${STAGEDIR}${DATADIR}/${file}.sample > > Definitely not: The location of the configuration files is %%ETCDIR%%, i.e. > /usr/local/etc/minecraft-server. In *this* location both the .sample file > and the user-modified "real" configuration file are located. However, the > minecraft executable expects its config files in %%DATADIR%%, i.e. > /usr/local/share/minecraft-server, which is why symlinks are created there > pointing to real file location (without .sample suffix). This is intentional. I think I know why the blank files are there then. Minecraft must crash if the symlink doesn't point to a real file I'm guessing. I still don't like blank sample files. > If I would want to be the port maintainer, I would volunteer. It did not. I > am just a bug reporter. This port was just assigned maintainership and it does not bode well that he's been silent on his first PR. So unless we completely fix the port we should just mark it broken, right? No sense in only fixing half of it... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-194312-13-FpfzDTGK0W>