Date: 29 Mar 2000 20:07:09 -0800 From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: pkg/SECURITY Message-ID: <vqc3dp95ceq.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: Kris Kennaway's message of "Sun, 26 Mar 2000 15:55:28 -0800 (PST)" References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003261552050.5971-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> * On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, David O'Brien wrote: * * > On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 05:43:54PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: * > > I've written patches which teach bsd.port.mk and pkg_foo about a * > > pkg/SECURITY (and +SECURITY) file which gets cat'ed to the user before * > > pre-fetch, after post-install, and at pkg_add time. * > * > How is that different than having a pkg/MESSAGE file and explicitly * > cat'ing it in pre-fetch, and post-install? * * Because pkg/MESSAGE might already exist, and it's for a separate * purpose. MESSAGE is often used for things like post-install configuration * options that must be done before the port can be used, which isn't * appropriate to display before compilation. Well, you can use pkg/MESSAGE for anything you want.... * My pkg/SECURITY change also prints it bracketed by a * * ****** SECURITY WARNING ****** * * line and adds a "Press ^C if this is not acceptable" when displaying in * pre-fetch. You can put those inside the message files too. :) * I think it's cleaner to have it separate to MESSAGES. Actually I think it's better to use a REQ file so you can make sure the user actually reads those stuff.... Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?vqc3dp95ceq.fsf>