Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 17:24:58 +0100 From: Jan Henrik Sylvester <me@janh.de> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: ports-list freebsd <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Xournal: Please, help me with my first port Message-ID: <4D3C565A.7060009@janh.de> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=VBLx9=hd0Cf-h1rTJAt61m4Mm%2B6x_sib9WAQm@mail.gmail.com> References: <4D39FEBA.3000806@janh.de> <AANLkTimSe3wBQ_FPdfDtgcLH-bDXsDfX2AZ3hsD5Xff4@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinU4rCAhgW2=3eNTPgPdftPDn8KiBF_ORGmVqtX@mail.gmail.com> <4D3AF40E.7090301@janh.de> <AANLkTikfWUSXoH6QOkZ=z43CvhDsTy_hZPfToM1tgMTN@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=VBLx9=hd0Cf-h1rTJAt61m4Mm%2B6x_sib9WAQm@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/23/2011 11:42, Chris Rees wrote:
> Take a look at the new patch so far; I'm still working on Busybox at
> the moment, so I'm afraid I can't step too much more through it, but
Just a question about what you did so far: Why the
"CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--prefix=${PREFIX}"? I have tested with a different
PREFIX before and it was successful -- that is what the second part of
the REINPLACE accomplished. What does your line improve?
Or is it a first step, if I wanted to make the port DATADIR-safe?
> it should give you a little more to work on. I've tidied the REINPLACE
> lines for you too.
Thanks, that is better to read.
> http://www.bayofrum.net/~chris/patches/xournal.diff
>
> DATADIR-safe appears unnecessary according to the conversation
> http://www.mailinglistarchive.com/freebsd-ports@freebsd.org/msg08234.html
> , so I think that this port should be fine as is right now. Try
> submitting it, it should be fine.
That is what I thought and since I would have to patch the source (at
least main.c) and the Mafile(s), I did not consider it to be worse it,
since I do not believe anyone will ever use a different DATADIR for this
port.
That leads to my second question: Is your proposal to replace the
"share/xournal" in pkg-plist by "%%DATADIR%%" correct although the port
is not DATADIR-safe? Currently, if DATADIR is set the port ends up to be
installed with wrong +CONTENTS, since the installation ignores DATADIR
being set, but +CONTENTS uses it.
I believe that it is correct what portlint says: "If and only if your
port is DATADIR-safe (that is, a user can override DATADIR when building
this port and the port will still work correctly) consider using DATADIR
macro; if you are unsure if this port is DATADIR-safe, then ignore this
warning". Thus, there should not be DATADIR in my pkg-plist as long as
the port is not DATADIR-safe.
Cheers,
Jan Henrik
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D3C565A.7060009>