Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:15:41 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers -- CONF_FILES variable Message-ID: <CADLo83-h5UCO9-7=cfh6ERWHGqKzxj6J2SrfVuj5u5Nb-U1AhA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgkpAWRVz5vueUfVpuZcdYzKyn0c1K9pAmNwgbOUp=TtYg@mail.gmail.com> References: <BANLkTikvMU2dK=aN=hFgxA8wfvUitmfbRA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinBC184bwcQ1Sfyy9xsw9usqr3SJQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=nQByFgGNP--hkA4AF04Sw95s8jw@mail.gmail.com> <4E0C5B7A.5060102@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgnkxuGcNk8O7vz0aLFBo2jLU-G%2BxaXSAS1Zvik2%2B%2BYtiw@mail.gmail.com> <4E109521.10209@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgmiLvMFiUWv3BLYd7UjxJpOH3DBAPBkT5wOL=wM2UhrGw@mail.gmail.com> <64bc4d1f59e39f71f77ced1aed64e734@etoilebsd.net> <CAF6rxgkpAWRVz5vueUfVpuZcdYzKyn0c1K9pAmNwgbOUp=TtYg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14 July 2011 20:02, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> wrote: >> The reason I choose pkgconf (we can change that name) is that it concern= s >> only configuration files that the maintainers DO want. >> >> I want to make sure that maintainers are looking at the samples the prop= rose >> to provide a usable sample, not the default one from the distfile (the >> default one can still be provided as an example.) > > So, this suffix is only for configuration files that port maintainers > write and included sample files from upstream > would not have this suffix? > > Why would the maintainer be writing sample conf files? It is not the > maintainer's job to write documentation for the upstream project. The > only case I could see this becoming an issue is if the default > configuration file ignores hier(1) and a REINPLACE is needed. I do > _not_ want to see sample configuration files being written for ports > unless a considerable amount of rework is needed to make the > application run on FreeBSD. What bapt is talking about is that he doesn't want people to blindly install the .sample files from the distfile, and actually _look_ through them. Of course, if you're changing the files at all you really shouldn't use the .sample format, because the .sample format comes from the distfile, not necessarily the port. Being explicit about .pkgconf (or whatever colour it is) shows that the maintainer is responsible for the sample config file rather than the upstream. I think it's much politer for the users to receive a config file that's almost usable. >> I wanted that pkgng and the ports in general can manage default usable >> configuration files, and to distinguish them from the samples. Thanks cr= ees@ >> has done the job I wanted to do myself so that and he has done it right. > > I am confused. I thought Chris's option was for the upstream sample > configuration files.My understanding is that it replaces the logic of > "only delete the real config file if it does not differ from the > sample file". =A0Why then does it matter who wrote the sample since the > logic works the same way? Either we will need multiple copies of this > macro, one for "official" files and the other for "package" files or > the logic will still have to be replicated per port for non-included > samples. IMHO the suffix (and type of sample file) should not be > touched by the macro. > > Perhaps I misunderstand what will be new in pkgng or what this patch prov= ides? > Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-h5UCO9-7=cfh6ERWHGqKzxj6J2SrfVuj5u5Nb-U1AhA>