From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Feb 29 20:59:27 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95255240B1A for ; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 20:59:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@BSDforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (static-24-113-41-81.wavecable.com [24.113.41.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ultimatedns.net", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48VJgK3WwFz4FXf for ; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 20:59:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@BSDforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (localhost [IPv6:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 01TKxfLV069544 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Feb 2020 12:59:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from portmaster@BSDforge.com) X-Mailer: Cypht MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: In-Reply-To: <20200229194440.70ad674e@raksha.tavi.co.uk> From: Chris Reply-To: portmaster@BSDforge.com To: Bob Eager Subject: Re: When to use TMPPLIST instead of pkg-plist? Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 12:59:47 -0800 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48VJgK3WwFz4FXf X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of portmaster@BSDforge.com has no SPF policy when checking 24.113.41.81) smtp.mailfrom=portmaster@BSDforge.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.85 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[portmaster@BSDforge.com]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-0.28)[ip: (-0.51), ipnet: 24.113.0.0/16(-0.26), asn: 11404(-0.58), country: US(-0.05)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[BSDforge.com]; REPLYTO_ADDR_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.21)[0.206,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.98)[-0.981,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11404, ipnet:24.113.0.0/16, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 20:59:27 -0000 On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 19:44:40 +0000 Bob Eager rde@tavi=2Eco=2Euk said > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:29:18 -0800 > Chris wrote: >=20 > > 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 >=20 > make makeplist >=20 > I believe You believe correctly=2E :) funny it doesn't show up in man ports=2E Thanks for the correction, Bob! --Chris