Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:31:59 +0400 From: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> To: "Philip M. Gollucci" <pgollucci@p6m7g8.com> Cc: "Philip M. Gollucci" <pgollucci@ridecharge.com>, ruby@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC]: RUBYGEM_AUTOPLIST implied by USE_RUBYGEMS=yes Message-ID: <20090411203159.25fd4c48.stas@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <49E0AB5D.60403@p6m7g8.com> References: <49DFC680.9000104@ridecharge.com> <49DFCAEB.60505@p6m7g8.com> <20090411113216.24170d6f.stas@FreeBSD.org> <49E0AB5D.60403@p6m7g8.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:38:21 -0400 "Philip M. Gollucci" <pgollucci@p6m7g8.com> mentioned: > > I don't think it is a good idead as historically we prefer static pkg-plists > > over dynamic ones. For ports where names of the files are perfectly known > > AUTOPLIST feature is not required. When I introduced this option my intention > > was to work around rdoc names generation problem and to not eliminate rubygem > > pkg-plists entirely. > *sigh*. > > Wouldn't every rubygem port have to use it to work around that issue > (the zfs one?)? Nope, as not all gem ports contain auto-generated rdoc files. > > That means every rubygem should fail in QAT then b/c of the NOPORTDOCS > .... he must be excluding them. > Well, as I said before I like the idea of automatic handle of NOPORTDOCS key. Often, docs included are just static files with known names, and in this case AUTOPLIST feature is not needed. Otherwise, the port can use AUTOPLIST feature. - -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEARECAAYFAkngxgMACgkQK/VZk+smlYHlgQCffRvPSYjYDFU5LRr3LiYunC2E sHIAn23DUOgquFzhQpTRlUhLGT9rBhvM =8scD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- !DSPAM:49e0c5fc967001346518677!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090411203159.25fd4c48.stas>