Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:24:53 -0300 From: lioux@uol.com.br To: "Scot W. Hetzel" <hetzels@westbend.net> Cc: lioux@uol.com.br, Satoshi Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NOPORTDOCS handling Message-ID: <20000604012453.A446@Fedaykin.here> In-Reply-To: <00a901bfcd8a$e6b0f180$8dfee0d1@westbend.net>; from hetzels@westbend.net on Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 01:38:23PM -0500 References: <200006021931.MAA67682@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <200006031234.OAA13213@peedub.muc.de> <20000603144658.A7092@Fedaykin.here> <00a901bfcd8a$e6b0f180$8dfee0d1@westbend.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 01:38:23PM -0500, Scot W. Hetzel wrote: > From: <lioux@uol.com.br> > > What about adding direct support to PLIST preprocessing. > > Sort of @document. > > Sort of adding Satoshi's script to PLIST handling. > > Ideas? > > > That sounds like a good ideal, we should probably also add @config, > @configext directives that would replace: > > @unexec if cmp -s %D/etc/apache/access.conf > %D/etc/apache/access.conf.default; then rm -f %D/etc/apache/access.conf; fi > etc/apache/access.conf.default > @exec [ ! -f %B/access.conf ] && cp %B/%f %B/access.conf > > with: > > @configext -default > @config etc/apache/access.conf > > Now if someone could come up with the necessary patches to the pkg_install > tools. Following that line. Why don't we add: @ldconfig @ldunconfig These would simplify all libraries. Who mentioned cpp? That really sounds marvelous, however, do we desire the extra level of complexity? I do, but do the others? Regards, Mario Ferreira To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000604012453.A446>