From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 5 20:01:21 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 A0AE516A416; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 20:01:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.60.158]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB6043CA5; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 20:00:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 77F605C57; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 14:41:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 14:41:46 -0500 From: Wesley Shields To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20061205194146.GC52966@atarininja.org> 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> <4575C568.70905@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4575C568.70905@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) 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 20:01:21 -0000 On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:15:52AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > 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}" >> ${TMPPLIST}; \ > >> > >> This would allow the bsd.port.mk patch be added, without having to > >> update the pkg_install tools on older systems. > >> > >> Then the ports tools (portupgrade, portmaster, ..) could be changed to > >> look for either "@distfile" or "@comment distfile" in the +CONTENTS > >> file. > > @distfile is cleaner, but are you saying that we can add the comment > even if pkg_create doesn't have special knowledge of the @distfile > stuff? If so, isn't the sense of your test reversed? /me confused :) > > Meanwhile, for the record you're right that adding code to portmaster > to parse either format is not hard. It'll be much less work than what > I've got there now. :) > > Given that I'm about to release a new version of portmaster, I'd > really like to get this change in now if I can. Can we reach a > consensus (portmgr?) that what Scot proposed is how it will be done, > even if we don't agree on the mechanics or timing yet? > > > I was going to suggest wrapping the patch in an OSVERSION check for the > > proper pkg_info update, however I think your approach is better. > > To me it seems odd that pkg_create has to know about every line in the > tmp plist. (Having pkg_info know about it is nice too, but not > necessary to make the mechanics of the change work.) Would it not be a > better idea to update pkg_create so that it simply packages up what's > there? Is there a benefit to pkg_create having special knowledge about > the details like this? All I know is that "make package" would error out when it ran into the @distfile line when I was working on this. This is why I had to make the change to pkg_create. > > I'm going to make it ignore the -F flag when there are no recorded > > distfiles (and document this fact in the manpage). > > Good change. I'd like to finalize how it should look in +CONTENTS before I make this change, but it will get done eventually. :) One way I was exploring is adding @comment DISTFILE:$filename:$size:$md5:$sha256 into the generated plist. This way we shouldn't have to change pkg_create and only modify pkg_info and other tools. I haven't tested this fully but it was just a fairly easy and concise way that I believe will work. By adding it to +CONTENTS using some type of @comment line we can avoid changing pkg_create and make for easier adoption. The only changes that will need to be made will be to those programs which process +CONTENTS directly, and even those modifications will be minimal. For now I'm going with the line above until suggested otherwise. :) I should have a patch ready in a day or two (time is a bit tight right now). -- WXS