From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Aug 28 19:10:34 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA01775 for ports-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 19:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA01770 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 19:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jkh@localhost) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) id TAA21367; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 19:10:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Message-Id: <960828191024.ZM21365@time.cdrom.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 19:10:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: James FitzGibbon "Re: Should this port go in ?" (Aug 28, 7:02pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.514 14may96) To: James FitzGibbon Subject: Re: Should this port go in ? Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I'm forced to agree with Chuck - I don't see where the dynamic PLIST behavior makes sense in a port where no such dynamism is required, and anyone else looking at this port is going to be left wondering just why it's so darn complicated. The dynamic PLIST file is still a reasonable idea, and one I'd use if the port had a highly interactive install which selectively copied only certain components of the port into place. Then you could conceivably use one port to generate several different packages, each with a slightly different intended audience. Just don't fall in love with the idea so much that you start obfuscating ports unnecessarily - that's all I'm asking! :) -- - Jordan Hubbard President, FreeBSD Project