Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 00:17:21 -0200 From: Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez <rnsanchez@wait4.org> To: infofarmer@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: substitutions in pkg-plist Message-ID: <20071102001721.62bc2107.rnsanchez@wait4.org> In-Reply-To: <20071101184628.GA20862@amilo.cenkes.org> References: <20071030175348.47c6e060.rnsanchez@wait4.org> <20071030182314.2c0cca7b.rnsanchez@wait4.org> <20071101184628.GA20862@amilo.cenkes.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 21:46:49 +0300 Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:23:14PM -0200, Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez > wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:53:48 -0200 > > Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez <rnsanchez@wait4.org> wrote: > > > > > This works, but it is not clear why %%whatever%% macros fail > > > silently. > > > > The point is not exactly "fail silently", but why the %D prefixing is > > explicitly necessary? > > A single path alone on a line is a shorthand for %D/path. In case > of @exec, @unexec, @cwd and other commands there is no such > shorthand. What I found out was that 6.1-RELEASE has ETCDIR, whereas 6.2-RELEASE don't. In order to get my port working, I added similar definitions (ETCDIR?= ...) and also relevant files for substitution. Now I'm using %D/%%ETCDIR%% successfully. :) -- Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez rnsanchez@wait4.org Powered by FreeBSD "Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071102001721.62bc2107.rnsanchez>