From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 10 11:11:43 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA611065675 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:11:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gary.jennejohn@freenet.de) Received: from mout1.freenet.de (mout1.freenet.de [IPv6:2001:748:100:40::2:3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51688FC1D for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:11:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [195.4.92.23] (helo=13.mx.freenet.de) by mout1.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID gary.jennejohn@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.72 #3) id 1O0YbE-0006qX-Nk; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:11:40 +0200 Received: from p57ae1c13.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([87.174.28.19]:10554 helo=ernst.jennejohn.org) by 13.mx.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID gary.jennejohn@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.72 #3) id 1O0YbE-0003gM-H1; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:11:40 +0200 Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:11:39 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn To: Garrett Cooper Message-ID: <20100410131139.19dfd7a4@ernst.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: References: <4BC04503.4000808@bsdforen.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.7; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dominic Fandrey , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Trivial PR, fix package-noinstall X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: gary.jennejohn@freenet.de List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:11:43 -0000 On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:18:42 -0700 Garrett Cooper wrote: > FWIW, I've thought this over and and user modifiable scripts should > not be in packages; they should instead be example files which don't > conflict with real configuration files. This is already the case for > several ports, but not all ports. If we did this, it would solve the > problem we've had with ports removing or overwriting user config files > simply and easily. I wonder if other folks agree with me or not. > I agree as long as the port emits a message pointing the user at the example configuration files. In some cases more than this may be needed since man pages might refer to configuration files which no longer exist. -- Gary Jennejohn