From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 30 01:05:03 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71ABF1065673; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:05:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mezz.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pv0-f182.google.com (mail-pv0-f182.google.com [74.125.83.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431808FC0C; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:05:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pvg11 with SMTP id 11so1717586pvg.13 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:05:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=89F66JSFXwRWai1BjX8g0wSNLiyCi02quz9UX3wEelI=; b=F9DufgMiAuXO+4QstbgTXYm0bxxT7eRcr+AlKjW4G7+9gulUkiy6m3fHWiPL1jMfYy z78jI7ef30pShrqiDPz4onIhfNddc7bwUrqIVV3AFgLvDI3GZ4I7lLUZU2LyVKfJ+DuH sICYCtAh9xhMjEczEXJ+vc0b1ZnykXUPcUcF4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.27.170 with SMTP id u10mr1805049pbg.529.1309394101030; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.58.230 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:35:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:35:01 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jeremy Messenger To: Chris Rees Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: ports@freebsd.org, ohauer@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers -- CONF_FILES variable 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: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:05:03 -0000 On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Chris Rees wrote: > Dear all, > > I've rewritten the CONF_FILES handling after talking to bapt@, and > I've done away with the > colon-separated tuples -- they're overcomplicated. > > The result is something like MAN and PORTDOCS (indeed most of the code > is stolen from PORTDOCS). > > This means that shell globs, filenames and directories are specified > in CONF_FILES, but the sample file is installed in the Makefile as > .pkgconf. I like the rest, but I do not like the name of .pkgconf. I think, the 'pkgconf' is best define for something related with FreeBSD rather than third-party product. The .sample or .default is best name and less confuse for the users, because the word said it all what it is. Cheers, Mezz > Examples for MailScanner [1] show how it can replace huge trees of > config files, and for portscout [2] shows how it is used for just one > file. > > Look at how much has been removed from the MailScanner plist and > pkg-*install.in files -- there are three screens of unused functions > that could also be chopped out now too! > > I'm asking people to (if they want) try out the new variable, and let > me know what they like and don't like about it. > > Since bapt@ is sort of sponsoring this and isn't back for ~ two weeks > it won't make it in before then at least, but some testing and > feedback would be fantastic! > > http://people.freebsd.org/~crees/patches/bsd-port-mk-conf-files-plist-only-pkgconf.diff > > Chris > > [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~crees/patches/mailscanner-conf-files.diff > [2] http://people.freebsd.org/~crees/patches/portscout-conf-files.diff > > P.S. Before people complain about the pkgconf suffix, that is for > compatibility with pkgng, and no, .sample files are not going to be > supported -- they'll need to be installed as .pkgconf. Sorry. -- mezz.freebsd@gmail.com - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org