Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:43:25 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) To: ac199@hwcn.org Cc: ac199@hwcn.org, vanilla@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: manpages (Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/p5-Term-Query p5-Term-Query-2.0.tgz) Message-ID: <199808240743.AAA04029@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980824024546.1308C-100000@localhost> (message from Tim Vanderhoek on Mon, 24 Aug 1998 03:29:24 -0400 (EDT))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
By the way, I take back my comment about NO_INSTALL_MANPAGES. If the
software isn't installing manpages by itself, then more likely than
not the port Makefile is doing it by ${INSTALL_MAN} -- so it's better
to assume "MANCOMPRESSED=no" in that case. (I know, it just blew up
in my face.)
* It sure seems like a good idea to me. My one worry is that this
* would make more work for Steve, vanilla, mph, or one of the
* committers who dedicate countless hours to testing and closing
* the various PRs that submit updates to ports...?
What do you mean? As people submit updates to Makefiles with too many
manpages?
I thought you were going to write a script to do that. :)
* The other possibility is just to let Makefiles use a
* ``.include "pkg/MEN"''.
That could be much easier. Then it's only one file.
* [Of course, a guideline such as "don't use this for less than XX
* manpages" should be made.]
Definitely.
* > +# NO_WRKDIR - There's no work directory at all; port does this someplace
* > +# else.
*
* Obviously still there...
Didn't have the energy to look at those that will break.... ;)
* Somehow you've changed what was originally a simple change into
* something pretty large... :)
You will have to look at the new porting.sgml before you say that. I
think I can write a book now.
* Since so much is changing anyways... Is it worthwhile changing a
* few non-absolute paths to absolute ones? I'm not sure what the
* original reason for using absolute paths was, but if it was
* good... :)
*
* My cursory scroll-through finds naked pkg_delete, expr, and of
* course, many many [. I assume the last one was intentional due
* to the fact that even using the short variable form "$[" doubles
* its length. :)
Well, I've never seen an OS with [ in anywhere else than /bin.
* There's also a naked ldconfig on line ~1751.
Ok, fixed those too.
* [Hehe. I'm tempted to suggest an INSTALLS_SHLIBS variable, now,
* but that probably should wait untill after E-day, at least :-]
(satoshi rolls his eyes)
Satoshi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808240743.AAA04029>