Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:54:23 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How useful is %%DATADIR%%, anyway? Message-ID: <4F74152F.4090302@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CADLo839cUtxHJNqYQtvaFSp9Jjg21Hsn0U7xiOS9JuGmkhETmg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CADLo839cUtxHJNqYQtvaFSp9Jjg21Hsn0U7xiOS9JuGmkhETmg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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=*, PORTDATA=* 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?
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= foo bar baz
post-install:
.for file in ${PORTDOCS}
...
.endfor
So taking into consideration that '*' might not always be literally '*',
I'm in favor.
hth,
Doug
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F74152F.4090302>