Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 10:28:05 +0100 From: Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: autoamtic plists (was: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/linux-openal bsd.linux.mk) Message-ID: <20051204102805.76165d98.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20051203162134.02a8cb27@Magellan.Leidinger.net> References: <200511261918.jAQJIp91001719@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051201152026.lxwvpjokc0sw0okc@netchild.homeip.net> <20051202121534.44c2c7be.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <20051202142827.2s3y42ss8w0o0g0o@netchild.homeip.net> <20051202163734.23814a2f.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <20051202180608.nvo7zkvp1wswkcs0@netchild.homeip.net> <20051202200407.0dd89f9b.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <20051203162134.02a8cb27@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Signature=_Sun__4_Dec_2005_10_28_05_+0100_yxmZOZm.jyaWauXK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 16:21:34 +0100 Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote: > On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 20:04:07 +0100 > Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >=20 > > On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:06:08 +0100 > > Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote: > >=20 > > > >> >> - why do you use different ways of specifying the paths in DESCR > > > >> >> and MD5_FILE? > > > >> >> - why do you specify DESCR at all? > > > >> > > > > >> > The idea is to use the FreeBSD native port's pkg-descr. > > > >> > > > >> I don't think this is good. I think the descr should mention that = the ports > > > >> provide the linux versions of the port. > > > > > > > > It's obvious from the package name and comment. But once again, peo= ple > > > > are free to bypass this helper if they don't like it. > > >=20 > > > It may be obvious for us, but not obvious for others. I like it to be > > > unambiguos. Let's do it the other way around (POLA): If someone want'= s to > > > override it, he can set it to the FreeBSD port description in the port > > > itself. > >=20 > > Shrug. Ok. >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > > > >> automatic plist generator to write their own plists. It also allow= s to look > > > >> up the contents of the port without a need to install it. And we'r= e able to > > > >> answer questions like "which port installs file X". So we get the = good > > > >> features of both worlds, don't you think? > > > > > > > > I've added new-plist and NO_AUTOMATIC_PLIST for auto plist haters. > > >=20 > > > This doesn't address the "lookup" and "will-be-installed-by" parts ab= ove (ok, > > > they are the same, but...). These are major topics. You can read on p= orts@ > > > from this week about someone who tries to write an application which = does > > > something like this but has problems because of the automatic plists.= Having > > > the static plists (auto-generated or by hand) in the tree, also helps= in > > > support requests, since someone with experience just can tell "instal= l port > > > X" to a newbie, even if he doesn't know anything about the port in qu= estion > > > himself. > > >=20 > > > So there's demand, and we mostly can satisfy it, but when we go the "= all > > > automatic" way, we can't anymore. > > >=20 > > > I can understand that with a really good automatic mechanism, there w= ill be > > > less errors in the plist (specially some like those I produced in the= last > > > two weeks), but we can have the good part of this mechanism and the g= ood > > > part of plists in the tree just with the "new-plist" target. > > >=20 > > > Are there any technical arguments which makes it mandatory to use your > > > version of install-time generated plists instead of my proposal to co= mmit > > > the automatically generated plist? > >=20 > > We have already discussed this: > >=20 > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/2005-September/071826.html >=20 > And the metadata infrastructure you outlined in this thread isn't here. > So the concerns which are raised in the discussion starting in > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2005-January/019974.html > can't be met. >=20 > Since your switch to install-time plist generation would result in > reduced usability of the ports tree, at least for those people which > are able to read a plist or at least how to extract some information > out of it, I ask you again to go the "commit the autogenerated plist" > way in bsd.linuxrpm.mk to respect POLA of those people (BTW: this would > be the majority of people which participated in the thread I started in > January). It doesn't result in much more work (just a "make new-plist") > and provides the same feature while addressing all concerns noted in > "my" thread. >=20 > BTW: most of my commits today to the linux-* ports contained changes to > the plist which I autogenerated with the "new-plist" target of > x11-toolkits/linux-gtk. After autogenerating the plist I had to modify > the plist to DTRT. If you can come up with a smarter way of > autogenerating the plist, the work involved until you're be able to > commit a generated plist (after updating the version number of the port > and fetching the distfiles) is negligible. Let's stop this. If you agree, I'll ask portmgr if I can commit the file, without the DESCR line, and with "!defined(NO_AUTOMATIC_PLIST)" changed to "defined(AUTOMATIC_PLIST)". --=20 Jean-Yves Lefort jylefort@FreeBSD.org http://lefort.be.eu.org/ --Signature=_Sun__4_Dec_2005_10_28_05_+0100_yxmZOZm.jyaWauXK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDkralyzD7UaO4AGoRAhRWAJ4jfABOp/8MwkgxZsm4tCYiPAeOTgCeIOqv /w0PYV930Cf3t2x8V/OXrKo= =QpdF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Sun__4_Dec_2005_10_28_05_+0100_yxmZOZm.jyaWauXK--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051204102805.76165d98.jylefort>