Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:55:29 +0100 From: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Luigi Rizzo <luigi@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/linux-kmod-compat Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist Message-ID: <1170446129.2386.4.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> In-Reply-To: <20070202113527.A98938@xorpc.icir.org> References: <200702021808.l12I8KBY073193@repoman.freebsd.org> <1170440345.33849.0.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20070202103221.C97555@xorpc.icir.org> <1170441475.33849.7.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20070202113527.A98938@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-ciKgq3GjQ3ivMYzCSDUW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Luigi Rizzo p=ED=B9e v p=E1 02. 02. 2007 v 11:35 -0800:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:37:55PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Luigi Rizzo p=EDse v p=E1 02. 02. 2007 v 10:32 -0800:
> > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:19:05PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> ...
> > > > You can't do this. Now, the packages will contain nothing (read: be
> > > > useless).
> > >=20
> > > at least for the time being it makes no sense to have a
> > > package built for this port, for a variety of reasons
> > > (code stability, licensing, etc). So i have put in pkg-descr
> > > only enough info to cleanup on deinstall.
> > > I am not sure it will _ever_ make sense to have this as a package,
> > > when the code becomes stable enough it should should probably
> > > become part of the kernel.
> > >=20
> > > did i misunderstand something ?
> >=20
> > Yes.
> >=20
> > First, you break the Good Practices of port making.
> >=20
> > Second, you deny your users a part of the general functionality of the
> > ports collection - ie. packages. Users will be unable to install binary
>=20
> As i wrote, the developer of the code being ported (which happens
> to be me) has stated a few reasons why at this time he does not=20
> want a package made of this port. This is entirely his right, and
> we have the NO_PACKAGE keyword exactly for this reasons.
I think the reason stated in the Makefile on NO_PACKAGE line is bogus.
Surely you can build it, and move the binaries to another machine
running same OSVERSION ...?
> > Now there are methods to have the pkg-plist autogenerated. How hard it
> > would be?
>=20
> As for auto-building the pkg-plist, it is not totally automated,
> at least judging from Sec. 7.5 of the handbook, and now i really
> don't have more time to spend on this exercise. When the code being
Considered asking someone to maintain the port for you? So you could
fully devote to the coding.
--=20
Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz>
<pav@FreeBSD.org>
42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
--=-ciKgq3GjQ3ivMYzCSDUW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Toto je =?UTF-8?Q?digit=C3=A1ln=C4=9B?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8D=C3=A1st?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?=
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBFw5cxntdYP8FOsoIRAtefAJ4xVQs5eR3hom83l1+edFM6il8/YgCcCd9S
OhbslJiyv09oINHDDxj7IWo=
=43XD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-ciKgq3GjQ3ivMYzCSDUW--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1170446129.2386.4.camel>