Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:52:52 +1100 From: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> To: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Subject: Re: Why does everybody switch to dynamic plists? Message-ID: <20050121235252.GO1175@k7.mavetju> In-Reply-To: <41F18A5C.703@FreeBSD.org> References: <20050121205202.4092fc5a@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20050121200310.GA47832@graf.pompo.net> <41F18A5C.703@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 12:03:56AM +0100, Alex Dupre wrote: > Thierry Thomas wrote: > >- if for some reason the port becomes uncomplete on certain platforms > >or after an upgrade, because a file is not built, we don't notice it. > > => 6 negative aspects. > > And if for any reason (=wrong logic on plist creation) the dynamic > package list includes some extraneous (maybe manually created) files, > they'll be deleted after an upgrade. > => 7 negative aspects. After seeing x11-wm/swm (thanks for flz@xbsd.org for pointing out): - It removes the history of what a port installs. It's always nice to know what happened with installed files between port version changes. - It gives unnecessary copy-and-paste bloat in the pre-install/do-install targets in the ports Makefiles, with higher chances of failure to forget to install something. => 9 negative aspects. Who is going for the double digits? Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org edwin@mavetju.org | Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050121235252.GO1175>