Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 15:30:16 +0000 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Julien Laffaye <jlaffaye@freebsd.org> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org>, Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com>, ports@freebsd.org, ohauer@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers -- CONF_FILES variable Message-ID: <CAF6rxgnkxuGcNk8O7vz0aLFBo2jLU-G%2BxaXSAS1Zvik2%2B%2BYtiw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E0C5B7A.5060102@FreeBSD.org> References: <BANLkTikvMU2dK=aN=hFgxA8wfvUitmfbRA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinBC184bwcQ1Sfyy9xsw9usqr3SJQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=nQByFgGNP--hkA4AF04Sw95s8jw@mail.gmail.com> <4E0C5B7A.5060102@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Yes, right now, pkgng uses the .pkgconf suffix to know that it is a > configuration file. But now, we have a new format for the package > manifest so _maybe_ (it has to be discussed with bapt) we can add an > attribute to a file entry saying "I am a sample of a conf file". The > hardest part for that would be to detect in the ports tree if we are > using pkgng or the legacy pkg_install, and, depending on that, to > generate the appropriate entry in the manifest / plist. (I hope this isn't bikeshedding) I would much prefer this method over choosing an unusual suffix. There is much documentation on the internet that assumes certain things about packaging. Many times INSTALL files will tell the user to looking for a .sample file or .conf file. It would be odd and annoying to have the sample configuration file on certain versions of FreeBSD be different than everyone else. Also, as others have stated, pkgconf sounds like something FreeBSD specific - not a application specific suffix. As a general note: why does pkgng care about the file suffix at all? The pkg program should just be "dumb" about it and follow whatever the pkg-plist says to do. -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgnkxuGcNk8O7vz0aLFBo2jLU-G%2BxaXSAS1Zvik2%2B%2BYtiw>