Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:49:30 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Pav Lucistnik <pav@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: <20070203144930.6a63fbf4@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20070202124620.B99548@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> <1170446129.2386.4.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20070202121416.B99198@xorpc.icir.org> <1170447689.2386.8.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20070202124620.B99548@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> (Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:46:20 -0800): > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 09:21:29PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > Luigi Rizzo p=C3=ADse v p=C3=A1 02. 02. 2007 v 12:14 -0800: > > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 08:55:29PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > > > Luigi Rizzo p=C3=ADse v p=C3=A1 02. 02. 2007 v 11:35 -0800: > > > ... > > > > > 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. > > > >=20 > > > > I think the reason stated in the Makefile on NO_PACKAGE line is bog= us. > > >=20 > > > You are right. Fixed now. > > >=20 > > > > Surely you can build it, and move the binaries to another machine > > > > running same OSVERSION ...? > > >=20 > > > Pardon me but have you read what this thing does ? > > > This is the do-build target from the Makefile: > > >=20 > > > do-build: # nothing to build here, just a chance to update = the source. > > >=20 > > > there are no binaries built, just a tarball extracted and copied to t= he > > > destination directory, with no extra files. > > > If you make a package you just create a reformatted tarball with > > > the same content of the original distribution. Makes no sense. > > > you can just as easily download the original. > >=20 > > Of course it makes sense. It allows user to install it using the > > standard package mechanism. No deal it's just repackaging of vendor > > tarball. We have several ports taht install documentation in this > > manner. >=20 > maybe they are stable packages. This one is changing frequently now. > Anyways, it's my code, it's my choice. You can delete this and > another thousand ports if you don't like the idea of NO_PACKAGE > ports. The main complaint is about the missing plist. NO_PACKAGE is a ports build cluster feature (no transfer of the package to the ftp site), an user is still able to build a package. Without a plist you are not able to remove the installed stuff with the package management tools (and also not with "make deinstall" in the ports directory). > > > Now if you want to make packages for the children ports (gspca.ko, > > > qc511.ko and so on) that's another story and for those the pkg-plist > > > is fully compliant, i am just unclear on the licensing issues > > > (probably all it takes is add in the package a reference to the sourc= es) > > > and again, i think the modules are too experimental now to be > > > distributed as binaries. > >=20 > > Note that by not having the package for linux-kmod-compat, you also > > prevent packages for the actual drivers from happening. >=20 > why is that ? the dependency is BUILD_DEPEND, so as long as the build > machine has it, the drivers can be packaged by individually > removing the NO_PACKAGE line when it is safe to do so. The ports build cluster typically installs dependencies as a package. I don't know if this is a problem in this case or not. But what you have is a failed build of a dependency, because there will be leftover files on deinstall of the linux-kmod-compat port (empty plist). And AFAIK ports which depend upon a failed port will not be build. > > > > > > 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 be= ing > > > >=20 > > > > Considered asking someone to maintain the port for you? So you could > > > > fully devote to the coding. > > >=20 > > > I did, in the commit log: > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/devel/linux-kmod-compat/M= akefile > >=20 > > I mean, _before_ spending all the time and committing half finished > > work. >=20 > i was trying to save others a bit of work and learn something. >=20 > As for "half finished", this seems a bit of an overstatement. > We are just discussing on the content of a single file, pkg-plist > (or a few lines in the Makefile to build it at pre-install time), > and that was a deliberate choice of mine to have it this way now > and reconsider the choice at due time. The plist is a major part of a port. No ports committer will commit a port when he knows that the plist is broken. Bye, Alexander. --=20 152: PORN Poster Ohne Richtigen Namen http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070203144930.6a63fbf4>