Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 23:24:54 +0900 From: "Akinori -Aki- MUSHA" <knu@idaemons.org> To: sada@FreeBSD.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org, tom@eborcom.com, girgen@partitur.se, cjh@kr.freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Introducing a netscape wrapper Message-ID: <86snvxm5vt.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org> In-Reply-To: In your message of "Fri, 05 May 2000 20:48:40 %2B0900" <20000505204840K.sada@bsdclub.org> References: <86u2gdmhug.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org> <20000505204840K.sada@bsdclub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Fri, 05 May 2000 20:48:40 +0900,
SADA Kenji <sada@bsdclub.org> wrote:
> In article <86u2gdmhug.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org>
> knu@idaemons.org writes:
>
> >> Everytime you find something in common with all the netscape ports'
> >> wrappers, you can move it to the new wrapper, one by one. That's what
> >> I call "minimum changes".
>
> I understand it.
> But I don't understand why the new wrapper
> should be an independent port.
It's just because every netscape port has a `do-install' target of its
very own. The new wrapper's installation process, therefore, could
not be shared. Making it an independent port would be a plain
solution to this situation.
In addition, if you were to put the wrapper script in
www/netscape4-communicator/files, then each (indirect) slave port
would have to have advanced knowledge of the exact place of the script
other than its master directory. That wouldn't be nice, IMHO.
--
/
/__ __
/ ) ) ) ) /
Akinori -Aki- MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( @ idaemons.org / FreeBSD.org
"We're only at home when we're on the run, on the wing, on the fly"
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?86snvxm5vt.wl>