Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 16:15:37 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How useful is %%DATADIR%%, anyway? Message-ID: <CADLo83898nJ8fvtyapJ9Qtsbm5-dWVw1hLMXkNEUSc2Rv5rM%2BQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F74152F.4090302@FreeBSD.org> References: <CADLo839cUtxHJNqYQtvaFSp9Jjg21Hsn0U7xiOS9JuGmkhETmg@mail.gmail.com> <4F74152F.4090302@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29 March 2012 07:54, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 1:14 PM, Chris Rees wrote:
>> Just as a thought, I decided to try stripping out all mentions of
>> %%DATADIR%%, %%DOCSDIR%% etc from pkg-plist, and replacing them with
>> PORTDOCS=3D*, PORTDATA=3D* in the Makefiles etc.
>
> How much time does creating the dynamic plists take for ports with
> larger numbers of docs/data, vs. the static lists; and how many ports
> would be adversely affected, if any?
Well... running find on a directory tree doesn't take very long if all
we're doing is grabbing filenames, vs a 7% speedup of a ports csup (a
gross estimate of course, and portsnap compression will probably at
least partially eliminate this!). Worth remembering that the find is
only done on ports that are installed, rather than csup which is done
on *every* port.
> In regards to the idea itself, I like dynamic (or more dynamic) plist
> generation whenever possible, so I think you're going the right direction=
.
>
> One small note, some of us use a construction like this:
>
> PORTDOCS=3D =A0 =A0 =A0 foo bar baz
>
> post-install:
> .for file in ${PORTDOCS}
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...
> .endfor
>
> So taking into consideration that '*' might not always be literally '*',
> I'm in favor.
Great! I'll get docs patches in soon.
Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83898nJ8fvtyapJ9Qtsbm5-dWVw1hLMXkNEUSc2Rv5rM%2BQ>