Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:13:32 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> Cc: marcus@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD ports list <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What use is WWWDIR_REL? Message-ID: <4F35B2AC.7030501@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CACdU%2Bf9XKxk2yuMeMvJdJn8CuCPw3GMy7o044ocbVg4eYf-=zQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <4F31EBE1.8040000@FreeBSD.org> <CACdU%2Bf9XKxk2yuMeMvJdJn8CuCPw3GMy7o044ocbVg4eYf-=zQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/08/2012 20:18, Scot Hetzel wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> Following up to my previous post about "Why isn't WWWDIR_REL in the
>> default PLIST_SUB I broke open bsd.port.mk and found this:
>>
>> PLIST_SUB+= DOCSDIR="${DOCSDIR_REL}" \
>> EXAMPLESDIR="${EXAMPLESDIR_REL}" \
>> DATADIR="${DATADIR_REL}" \
>> WWWDIR="${WWWDIR_REL}" \ *******!!!!????!!!****
>> ETCDIR="${ETCDIR_REL}"
>>
>> So this leads me to many questions, the first and most obvious of which
>> is, what the heck good is WWWDIR_REL in the first place? I searched the
>> ports tree and found 1,063 uses of it (outside of bpm itself). 1,035 of
>> them are literals in a pkg-plist, which at this point looks completely
>> useless. Of the 28 others 13 of them are PLIST_SUB related, which
>> apparently can also be removed. Most of the other 15 look like mistakes,
>> and all of them look like they can be fixed with little difficulty.
>>
> Those 1035 ports that are using WWWDIR_REL in their pkg-plist are
> wrong and should be changed to use WWWDIR. Since PLIST_SUB will
> automatically replace %%WWWDIR%% with ${WWWDIR_REL} in the pkg-plist.
Ok, glad we're in agreement on that.
>> So I'd like to propose the attached, not to be included until the
>> existing uses of WWWDIR_REL are updated of course. Can anyone tell me
>> why this would be a bad idea? I think being able to just use %%WWWDIR%%
>> in the plist would be a lot less confusing.
>>
> I believe the original purpose of the *_REL variables in bsd.port.mk
> was to make maintaining bsd.port.mk easier.
Clearly I'm missing something then, because I don't see how they
accomplish anything useful. Perhaps you can enlighten me? There is
nothing in the CVS log that even mentions them, never mind why they were
added (bad portmgr, no cookie!).
Doug
--
It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F35B2AC.7030501>