Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:26:17 +0200 From: Ulrich Spoerlein <uspoerlein@gmail.com> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Rubygems and trouble with rdoc node renumbering - ports/123112 Message-ID: <20080429172617.GA1667@roadrunner.spoerlein.net> In-Reply-To: <20080428230931.0e70a370.stas@FreeBSD.org> References: <20080425195933.GB1674@roadrunner.spoerlein.net> <20080425221824.GE70297@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <20080426081917.GA1694@roadrunner.spoerlein.net> <20080428230931.0e70a370.stas@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've submitted PR ports/123112 as a possible next step to solve the
problem.
On Mon, 28.04.2008 at 23:09:31 +0400, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:19:17 +0200
> Ulrich Spoerlein <uspoerlein@gmail.com> mentioned:
>
> > Heh, well, that's exactly what I thought about, 5 minutes after sending
> > that email! Yes, I'm running /usr and the WRKDIRPREFIX on ZFS.
> >
> > I haven't compared, if it is responsible for shuffling around the order
> > in which directories are written (or read).
> >
> > Anyway, this means that almost all rdoc ports will break their pkg-plist
> > when you compile/create them on an ZFS system. I will test with UFS
> > today and also run some other rdoc-using ports on my ZFS to see if this
> > is general problem or only specific to my port.
>
> Yeah, pkg-plists of ruby ports that has static plist entries for rdoc
> are broken under ZFS. I spotted that problem a while ago when switched
> my tinderbox installation to ZFS. That's why they're also broken
> with ruby19 - ruby 19 tends to sort file names before renumbering,
> so they're consistent.
Is the numbering the same, as we get with my patch in the PR? Could you
please try this on a couple of ruby ports?
> The possible solution - convert all such ports to generate rdoc pkg-plist
> entries dynamically. In fact, this code will be common for major of
> such ports, and it will cut down their plists dramatically. If you
> interested, we can work on this, since it seems to be a lot of work. We can
> add a knob to bsd.ruby.mk for ports to generate such entries easily.
Dynamically generated plists are usually not well received, as you
cannot know a priori what files the port will install. Since this only
affects port documentation, though, I think this would be ok.
But you would have to add all files under the doc-prefix into this plist
*after* the port has been installed. This could spell trouble.
It would be way better, if the rubygem ports would extract and 'run
rdoc' under ${WRKSRC} and only then install/copy themselves.
Cheers,
Ulrich Spoerlein
--
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool,
than to speak, and remove all doubt.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080429172617.GA1667>