From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 16 15:52:53 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F73106566B for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:52:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Oliver@heesakkers.info) Received: from server4.ohos.nl (server4.ohos.nl [IPv6:2a00:d880:0:6::c951:214d]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40278FC13 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:52:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [2001:470:1f15:1555::2] (helo=pcoliver.heesakkers.info) by server4.ohos.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Ry3dV-000OhW-Ru for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:52:51 +0100 From: Oliver Heesakkers To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:52:44 +0100 Message-ID: <3087369.raKayRSI1y@pcoliver.heesakkers.info> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.3 (FreeBSD/9.0-RELEASE; KDE/4.7.4; amd64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <4F3D0A37.2060001@FreeBSD.org> References: <4F3CFC7F.3000900@secnap.com> <10470607.4oSeArzyYA@pcoliver.heesakkers.info> <4F3D0A37.2060001@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Making 8.3 packaged ports 'pretty'... and INSTALL_ICONS macro. X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:52:53 -0000 Op do 16 feb 2012 08:52:55 schreef Michael Scheidell: > On 2/16/12 8:33 AM, Oliver Heesakkers wrote: > > You committed the patch I wrote in ports/164344. > > I remember that. and the discussion then was 'don't do that' :-) I was not part of that discussion, so I'll just drop my 2 cents here now. > because, it is 'undefined', as in 'sorta random'. I agree that it's not a 'handbook-solution', but it works and I think your reservations below are unwarranted. > some systems will run > the gtk cache, some won't, Yes, that was the whole point of the patch, or rather, not compiling / installing the tools that create the cache was. > and some will run it depending on if gnome is > installed before the port, but won't run it if after. Looking at Mk/bsd.gnome.mk and some Gnome pkg-plists, installing Gnome afterwards would trigger a run of gtk-update-icon-cache in the right directory, for Merkaartor anyway, so no problem there. Other ports may need checking whether this holds true for them. The installation of Gnome could/should trigger a run of gtk-update-icon-cache for every directory in ${PREFIX}/share/icons. (there are only 4 on my desktop and 3 of them have icon caches, even though Gnome itself was never installed). > This also causes problems with package building, if package is built on > a different box (one with) , and installed on a box 'without', there are > problems. The only problem I see is that on the box installing the package, it would pull in the Gnome-stuff (hopefully as a package), which is no worse than unconditionally setting INSTALLS_ICONS. The other way around is worse. A package built without Gnome, installed on a system with Gnome, would require a manual application of gtk-update-icon- cache. Seems to me that the gnome-team needs to either confirm the claim in ports/162260 or come up with a way to update the icon cache for non-Gnome ports in a way that maintainers of those ports need not bother with INSTALLS_ICONS completely (and portlint has to be adjusted accordingly).