From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 5 19:15:55 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A6316A415 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:15:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7DEFF43C9D for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:15:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 17102 invoked by uid 399); 5 Dec 2006 19:15:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.7?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Dec 2006 19:15:54 -0000 Message-ID: <4575C568.70905@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:15:52 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.freebsd.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061125) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wesley Shields References: <17771.24717.95357.989644@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <456B70E9.4030408@FreeBSD.org> <20061204213106.GA42084@atarininja.org> <45749998.3070308@FreeBSD.org> <20061204232125.GA42307@atarininja.org> <790a9fff0612050838s66c655fapfde80d4038f64ca2@mail.gmail.com> <20061205172803.GA51892@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <20061205172803.GA51892@atarininja.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Scot Hetzel Subject: Re: distfile belongs to? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:15:55 -0000 Wesley Shields wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 10:38:42AM -0600, Scot Hetzel wrote: >> The bsd.port.mk patch could be changed to: >> >> .if (${OSVERSION} > 602100 && ${OSVERSION} < 700000) || ${OSVERSION} > >> 700027 >> PKGDISTFILE= "comment distfile" >> .else >> PKGDISTFILE="distfile" >> .endif >> : >> : >> - ${ECHO_CMD} "@distfle $${file}" >> ${TMPPLIST}; \ >> + ${ECHO_CMD} "@${PKGDISTFILE} $${file}" >> ${TMPPLIST}; \ >> >> This would allow the bsd.port.mk patch be added, without having to >> update the pkg_install tools on older systems. >> >> Then the ports tools (portupgrade, portmaster, ..) could be changed to >> look for either "@distfile" or "@comment distfile" in the +CONTENTS >> file. @distfile is cleaner, but are you saying that we can add the comment even if pkg_create doesn't have special knowledge of the @distfile stuff? If so, isn't the sense of your test reversed? /me confused :) Meanwhile, for the record you're right that adding code to portmaster to parse either format is not hard. It'll be much less work than what I've got there now. :) Given that I'm about to release a new version of portmaster, I'd really like to get this change in now if I can. Can we reach a consensus (portmgr?) that what Scot proposed is how it will be done, even if we don't agree on the mechanics or timing yet? > I was going to suggest wrapping the patch in an OSVERSION check for the > proper pkg_info update, however I think your approach is better. To me it seems odd that pkg_create has to know about every line in the tmp plist. (Having pkg_info know about it is nice too, but not necessary to make the mechanics of the change work.) Would it not be a better idea to update pkg_create so that it simply packages up what's there? Is there a benefit to pkg_create having special knowledge about the details like this? > I'm going to make it ignore the -F flag when there are no recorded > distfiles (and document this fact in the manpage). Good change. > As for the discussion: > I did find an old thread[1] which discusses this. The point was raised > that +CONTENTS is probably not the perfect place for this, to which I > agree. But putting it in +DISTINFO will require more complexity than > embedding it in +CONTENTS. The argument could be made that recording > the distfiles which were used to make the contents justifies the > existence of their names in +CONTENTS (as a @comment). There is already enough "other" stuff in the +CONTENTS file that this isn't an issue for me, but if others have strong opinions on this point let's air them out. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection