Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:36:06 +0100 From: david fries <djf@gmx.ch> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Question about pkg-plist Message-ID: <1264970166.2975.19.camel@sphinx.doesntexist.org> In-Reply-To: <20100131220419.52d53c65@it.buh.tecnik93.com> References: <1264966073.2975.17.camel@sphinx.doesntexist.org> <20100131220419.52d53c65@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks! I'll go for the second variant then since the LICENSE is installed regardless of NOPORTDOCS. On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 22:04 +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:27:53 +0100 > david fries <djf@gmx.ch> wrote: > > > Hello everybody > > > > I'm currently working on a tiny little port. It consists of a single > > binary and an accompanying LICENSE file. When I ran genplist, it > > generated this in pkg-plist.new: > > > > bin/mybinary > > %%PORTDOCS%%%%DOCSDIR%%/LICENSE > > %%PORTDOCS%%@dirrm %%DOCSDIR%% > > > > Simple enough. However, I also know that the LICENSE file will also be > > installed if NOPORTDOCS has been defined. I thought maybe I should > > write something like this. > > > > bin/mybinary > > %%DOCSDIR%%/LICENSE > > @dirrm %%DOCSDIR%% > > If you install the LICENCE file depending on NOPORTDOCS, the you should > keep the first variant; if not, the second. First is what you should do. > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1264970166.2975.19.camel>