Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:35:31 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Jan Henrik Sylvester <me@janh.de> Cc: ports-list freebsd <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Xournal: Please, help me with my first port Message-ID: <AANLkTikRyXM7qxbLDrhsJaRrnvCtSh3x4TZqD2SjChS2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D3C565A.7060009@janh.de> References: <4D39FEBA.3000806@janh.de> <AANLkTimSe3wBQ_FPdfDtgcLH-bDXsDfX2AZ3hsD5Xff4@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinU4rCAhgW2=3eNTPgPdftPDn8KiBF_ORGmVqtX@mail.gmail.com> <4D3AF40E.7090301@janh.de> <AANLkTikfWUSXoH6QOkZ=z43CvhDsTy_hZPfToM1tgMTN@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=VBLx9=hd0Cf-h1rTJAt61m4Mm%2B6x_sib9WAQm@mail.gmail.com> <4D3C565A.7060009@janh.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 January 2011 16:24, Jan Henrik Sylvester <me@janh.de> wrote:
> On 01/23/2011 11:42, Chris Rees wrote:
>>
>> Take a look at the new patch so far; I'm still working on Busybox at
>> the moment, so I'm afraid I can't step too much more through it, but
>
> Just a question about what you did so far: Why the
> "CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--prefix=${PREFIX}"? I have tested with a different PREFIX
> before and it was successful -- that is what the second part of the
> REINPLACE accomplished. What does your line improve?
>
> Or is it a first step, if I wanted to make the port DATADIR-safe?
>
>> it should give you a little more to work on. I've tidied the REINPLACE
>> lines for you too.
>
> Thanks, that is better to read.
>
>> http://www.bayofrum.net/~chris/patches/xournal.diff
>>
>> DATADIR-safe appears unnecessary according to the conversation
>> http://www.mailinglistarchive.com/freebsd-ports@freebsd.org/msg08234.html
>> , so I think that this port should be fine as is right now. Try
>> submitting it, it should be fine.
>
> That is what I thought and since I would have to patch the source (at least
> main.c) and the Mafile(s), I did not consider it to be worse it, since I do
> not believe anyone will ever use a different DATADIR for this port.
>
> That leads to my second question: Is your proposal to replace the
> "share/xournal" in pkg-plist by "%%DATADIR%%" correct although the port is
> not DATADIR-safe? Currently, if DATADIR is set the port ends up to be
> installed with wrong +CONTENTS, since the installation ignores DATADIR being
> set, but +CONTENTS uses it.
>
> I believe that it is correct what portlint says: "If and only if your port
> is DATADIR-safe (that is, a user can override DATADIR when building this
> port and the port will still work correctly) consider using DATADIR macro;
> if you are unsure if this port is DATADIR-safe, then ignore this warning".
> Thus, there should not be DATADIR in my pkg-plist as long as the port is not
> DATADIR-safe.
>
Perhaps you should ignore the portlint warnings and leave it as
share/xournal then.
If you stick up a PR with it attached, it looked absolutely fine by me
either way!
Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikRyXM7qxbLDrhsJaRrnvCtSh3x4TZqD2SjChS2>