Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 20:04:07 +0100 From: Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: autoamtic plists (was: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/linux-openal bsd.linux.mk) Message-ID: <20051202200407.0dd89f9b.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20051202180608.nvo7zkvp1wswkcs0@netchild.homeip.net> References: <200511261918.jAQJIp91001719@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051201152026.lxwvpjokc0sw0okc@netchild.homeip.net> <20051202121534.44c2c7be.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <20051202142827.2s3y42ss8w0o0g0o@netchild.homeip.net> <20051202163734.23814a2f.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <20051202180608.nvo7zkvp1wswkcs0@netchild.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Signature=_Fri__2_Dec_2005_20_04_07_+0100_+B7qD3upCe=z5CFN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:06:08 +0100 Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote: > >> >> - why do you use different ways of specifying the paths in DESCR > >> >> and MD5_FILE? > >> >> - why do you specify DESCR at all? > >> > > >> > The idea is to use the FreeBSD native port's pkg-descr. > >> > >> I don't think this is good. I think the descr should mention that the = ports > >> provide the linux versions of the port. > > > > It's obvious from the package name and comment. But once again, people > > are free to bypass this helper if they don't like it. >=20 > It may be obvious for us, but not obvious for others. I like it to be > unambiguos. Let's do it the other way around (POLA): If someone want's to > override it, he can set it to the FreeBSD port description in the port > itself. Shrug. Ok. > >> automatic plist generator to write their own plists. It also allows to= look > >> up the contents of the port without a need to install it. And we're ab= le to > >> answer questions like "which port installs file X". So we get the good > >> features of both worlds, don't you think? > > > > I've added new-plist and NO_AUTOMATIC_PLIST for auto plist haters. >=20 > This doesn't address the "lookup" and "will-be-installed-by" parts above = (ok, > they are the same, but...). These are major topics. You can read on ports@ > from this week about someone who tries to write an application which does > something like this but has problems because of the automatic plists. Hav= ing > the static plists (auto-generated or by hand) in the tree, also helps in > support requests, since someone with experience just can tell "install po= rt > X" to a newbie, even if he doesn't know anything about the port in questi= on > himself. >=20 > So there's demand, and we mostly can satisfy it, but when we go the "all > automatic" way, we can't anymore. >=20 > I can understand that with a really good automatic mechanism, there will = be > less errors in the plist (specially some like those I produced in the last > two weeks), but we can have the good part of this mechanism and the good > part of plists in the tree just with the "new-plist" target. >=20 > Are there any technical arguments which makes it mandatory to use your > version of install-time generated plists instead of my proposal to commit > the automatically generated plist? We have already discussed this: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/2005-September/071826.html --=20 Jean-Yves Lefort jylefort@FreeBSD.org http://lefort.be.eu.org/ --Signature=_Fri__2_Dec_2005_20_04_07_+0100_+B7qD3upCe=z5CFN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDkJqnyzD7UaO4AGoRAgjKAJ9Jz0JjvM63Twmqtc4SYPg3tphkjwCeIvtU E2du4VKMpP4DMpad03OSIpk= =3Quq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Fri__2_Dec_2005_20_04_07_+0100_+B7qD3upCe=z5CFN--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051202200407.0dd89f9b.jylefort>