Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>