Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:46:36 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/ppl Makefile distinfo pkg-plist ports/devel/ppl/files patch-configure Message-ID: <CADLo839jrJhEwOWW3T-NRHO4k6VGrME%2BeoP1pmJwsnzMN75T_Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1110182029580.8148@sea.ntplx.net> References: <201110190020.p9J0KGm4012016@repoman.freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1110182029580.8148@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19 Oct 2011 02:00, "Daniel Eischen" <deischen@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Daniel Eischen wrote: > >> deischen 2011-10-19 00:20:16 UTC >> >> FreeBSD ports repository >> >> Modified files: >> devel/ppl Makefile distinfo pkg-plist >> Removed files: >> devel/ppl/files patch-configure >> Log: >> Upgrade to 0.11.2. >> >> Submitted by: Mark Murray <markm_at_fbsd_dot_org >> >> Revision Changes Path >> 1.27 +5 -6 ports/devel/ppl/Makefile >> 1.11 +2 -2 ports/devel/ppl/distinfo >> 1.2 +0 -21 ports/devel/ppl/files/patch-configure (dead) >> 1.11 +1141 -1036 ports/devel/ppl/pkg-plist > > > I just updated the above port and I noticed that the > pkg-plist (both before and after the update) had some > files of the form: > > %%PORTDOCS%%%%DOCSDIR%%/../pwl > %%PORTDOCS%%%%DOCSDIR%%/../pwl/bar/ > %%PORTDOCS%%%%DOCSDIR%%/../pwl/bar/a > %%PORTDOCS%%%%DOCSDIR%%/../pwl/bar/b > > When I tried 'make package; make deinstall; pkg_add ...' > I got errors: > > share/doc/ppl/../pwl/BUGS: Path contains '..' > share/doc/ppl/../pwl/COPYING: Path contains '..' > share/doc/ppl/../pwl/CREDITS: Path contains '..' > share/doc/ppl/../pwl/ChangeLog: Path contains '..' > ... > tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors. > pkg_add: tar extract of /usr/ports/packages/All/ppl-0.10.2_1.tbz failed! > pkg_add: unable to extract '/usr/ports/packages/All/ppl-0.10.2_1.tbz'! > > Is there anything wrong with having '..' in the pathname > of files in pkg-plist? Since %%DOCSDIR%% is 'ppl' for this > port, should files installed under pwl just be specified as > this: > > %%PORTDOCS%%/pwl/bar > %%PORTDOCS%%/pwl/bar/a > %%PORTDOCS%%/pwl/bar/b > ... > > and omit %%DOCSDIR%% from their path? > > Thanks for any insights. > Depends if there are (or could be) symlinks involved.... Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839jrJhEwOWW3T-NRHO4k6VGrME%2BeoP1pmJwsnzMN75T_Q>