Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:29:18 -0800 From: Chris <portmaster@BSDforge.com> To: Mateusz Piotrowski <0mp@FreeBSD.org> Cc: <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: When to use TMPPLIST instead of pkg-plist? Message-ID: <a38ed7c362f0e941a4e76616d9df599f@udns.ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <a78ca75b-1596-ce0e-ccd5-f21210e16045@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:02:23 +0100 Mateusz Piotrowski 0mp@FreeBSD=2Eorg said > On 2/29/20 12:15 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:06:19PM +0100, Mateusz Piotrowski wrote: > >> Do we have any (perhaps unwritten) policy for when to use TMPPLIST? An= d > > when > >> should a port maintainer stick to pkg-plist? > > We do not=2E A port maintainer should stick to pkg-plist=2E >=20 > That's what I thought=2E >=20 > Is there a reason for it? Does it all boil down to that fact that=20 > pkg-plist is much more explicit and easier to debug/review? Or there is= =20 > another reason? TMPPLIST is an artifact of the QA process when making a port=2E It is used for comparison to what you, as a port maintainer claim is the pkg-plist, and whats found that looks as the actual plist=2E When a discrepancy occurs=2E You're warned, and instructed to make changes as required=2E The thing is, because of so many variables, that TMPPLIST isn't always correct=2E So to rely on it, as Mathieu stated, would be *bad* policy=2E As memory serves; it's also the product of make make-plist=2E Hope that helps in clarification=2E :) --Chris FreeBSD 14=2E0-FUTURE #0=2E000 cray256 >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Mateusz >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd=2Eorg mailing list > https://lists=2Efreebsd=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd=2Eorg"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a38ed7c362f0e941a4e76616d9df599f>