Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 01:08:29 +0300 (MSK) From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> To: Wesley Shields <wxs@atarininja.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: files to be checked on meta-ports Message-ID: <20070103010532.H28172@woozle.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <20070102213427.GA97476@atarininja.org> References: <20070102215813.Y12293@woozle.rinet.ru> <20070102194013.GB95902@atarininja.org> <20070103000824.Y28172@woozle.rinet.ru> <20070102213427.GA97476@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Wesley Shields wrote:
WS> > WS> > For some time I use local meta-ports referring different sets of useful ports.
WS> > WS> > Most of the time, this works well; the only exception is meta-ports which do
WS> > WS> > not install own files.
WS> > WS> >
WS> > WS> > I thought about refering /var/db/pkg/pkgname/ files, but this seems
WS> > WS> > unscalable due to constant path changes.
WS> > WS> >
WS> > WS> > Your thoughts?
WS> > WS>
WS> > WS> I don't know if it's acceptable to look there but you can always use
WS> > WS> ${PKG_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME} to get /var/db/pkg/portname (by default). I'm
WS> > WS> not sure I understand the "constant path changes" you mention.
WS> >
WS> > Errm, this refers to current port, not to the dependency (say, my
WS> > misc/ws-preferred wants to install x11/xorg)
WS>
WS> You're right. In the example you give above I would use
WS> ${PKG_DBDIR}/ws-preferred which is what you mentioned in your original
WS> post (and now makes sense to me, my apologies for the initial
WS> misunderstanding). Though if your metaport name ever changes you will
WS> have to chase it in other ports.
WS>
WS> I suppose one way to do it would be to have your metaport install a
WS> "dummy" file that you can use for checking purposes in other ports.
WS> This is easily done in a custom do-install: target.
That's exactly what I'm thinking about. However, we should invent some
consistent policy for this. What about touching category::origin file in some
directory (in after-install phase)? Or even more, shouldn't this be a part of
standard port installation process?
I think this should be discussed with portmgr@, CC:ing them.
Sincerely,
D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070103010532.H28172>