From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jan 31 20:35:57 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED9C106566B
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:35:57 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from djf@gmx.ch)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 898468FC12
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:35:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2010 20:35:54 -0000
Received: from adsl-84-226-84-152.adslplus.ch (EHLO [192.168.1.2])
	[84.226.84.152]
	by mail.gmx.net (mp001) with SMTP; 31 Jan 2010 21:35:54 +0100
X-Authenticated: #2052246
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+tNSMxETWt5QJtxqRYlQNoegmRyjpSCHtQTctPSs
	FKPZf9hgej5HAW
From: david fries <djf@gmx.ch>
To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100131220419.52d53c65@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
References: <1264966073.2975.17.camel@sphinx.doesntexist.org>
	<20100131220419.52d53c65@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:36:06 +0100
Message-ID: <1264970166.2975.19.camel@sphinx.doesntexist.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.59999999999999998
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Question about pkg-plist
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:35:57 -0000

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.
> 
>