Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:19:01 +0000 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Call for testers -- CONF_FILES variable Message-ID: <da6cc0d1fce831b77c735595d518808d@etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-h5UCO9-7=cfh6ERWHGqKzxj6J2SrfVuj5u5Nb-U1AhA@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> <CADLo83-h5UCO9-7=cfh6ERWHGqKzxj6J2SrfVuj5u5Nb-U1AhA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:15:41 +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > 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 >>> concerns >>> only configuration files that the maintainers DO want. >>> >>> I want to make sure that maintainers are looking at the samples the >>> proprose >>> 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 crees@ >>> 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". Why 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 >> provides? >> > > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" Thanks your english is better than mine to explain that :D Bapt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?da6cc0d1fce831b77c735595d518808d>