Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 04:42:42 -0800 (PST) From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: thomas@ghpc8.ihf.rwth-aachen.de Cc: chuckr@glue.umd.edu, FreeBSD-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a kvetch and a proposal Message-ID: <199512201242.EAA03491@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199512191008.LAA15240@ghpc8.ihf.rwth-aachen.de> (message from Thomas Gellekum on Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:08:00 %2B0100 (MET))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Most of the ports could add a post-install target which copies over
* documentation to PORTDOCSDIR?=$PREFIX/share/doc/$PKGNAME, depending
* on a make.conf variable like $NOPORTDOCS. This should be off by
* default, like $NOMANCOMPRESS.
I'd prefer not to have the PKGNAME in there, just the base name ("xv"
and such) should be fine. We overwrite everthing from the old port,
not much need to do differently for docs only.
* Unfortunately you can't do this via bsd.port.mk, because different
* ports have different conventions for keeping their docs, so it
* complicates a lot of Makefiles and maintainers with many ports will
* hate you for proposing it :-).
It *is* possible to do it from bsd.port.mk, we can just make it a
variable that holds a list of files (relative to ${WRKSRC}), as Chuck
suggested originally.
But I don't see much point in cluttering bsd.port.mk for this, it can
be handled how compressing manpages or stripping binaries is handled
now, i.e., in post-install targets.
* I'd vote for it, though it will take a while until the ports
* are updated.
All we need to do is to agree with the variable name (NOPORTDOCS
seems reasonable) and I'll put it in the handbook.
By the way, there are some things that *need* to be installed like xv
licenses, and these should not be conditionalized. On the other hand,
the postscript manual of xv probably goes to the ".if
!defined(NOPORTDOCS)" portion.
Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512201242.EAA03491>