From owner-freebsd-ports Fri May 5 7:25:34 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp (ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp [210.234.123.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B4D37B71A; Fri, 5 May 2000 07:25:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from knu@idaemons.org) Received: from daemon.local.idaemons.org (203-165-77-40.sugnm1.kt.home.ne.jp [203.165.77.40]) by ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp (8.9.3/3.7W 04/27/00) with ESMTP id XAA12304; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:25:27 +0900 (JST) Received: by daemon.local.idaemons.org (8.9.3/3.7W) id XAA48806; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:24:55 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 23:24:54 +0900 Message-ID: <86snvxm5vt.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org> From: "Akinori -Aki- MUSHA" To: sada@FreeBSD.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org, tom@eborcom.com, girgen@partitur.se, cjh@kr.freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Introducing a netscape wrapper In-Reply-To: In your message of "Fri, 05 May 2000 20:48:40 +0900" <20000505204840K.sada@bsdclub.org> References: <86u2gdmhug.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org> <20000505204840K.sada@bsdclub.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/1.1.1 (Purple Rain) EMIKO/1.13.12 (Euglena sociabilis) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) APEL/10.2 MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 9) (Canyonlands) (i386--freebsd) Organization: Associated I. Daemons X-PGP-Public-Key: finger knu@FreeBSD.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1BEF D9B2 BABD 25D7 659A FD08 89C2 F3BE E981 4E16 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by EMIKO 1.13.12 - "Euglena sociabilis") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At Fri, 05 May 2000 20:48:40 +0900, SADA Kenji wrote: > In article <86u2gdmhug.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org> > knu@idaemons.org writes: > > >> Everytime you find something in common with all the netscape ports' > >> wrappers, you can move it to the new wrapper, one by one. That's what > >> I call "minimum changes". > > I understand it. > But I don't understand why the new wrapper > should be an independent port. It's just because every netscape port has a `do-install' target of its very own. The new wrapper's installation process, therefore, could not be shared. Making it an independent port would be a plain solution to this situation. In addition, if you were to put the wrapper script in www/netscape4-communicator/files, then each (indirect) slave port would have to have advanced knowledge of the exact place of the script other than its master directory. That wouldn't be nice, IMHO. -- / /__ __ / ) ) ) ) / Akinori -Aki- MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( @ idaemons.org / FreeBSD.org "We're only at home when we're on the run, on the wing, on the fly" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message