Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 05:04:20 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Subject: Re: Why does everybody switch to dynamic plists? Message-ID: <m3k6q6az3v.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <20050121201832.GB2866@odin.ac.hmc.edu> (Brooks Davis's message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:18:32 -0800") References: <20050121205202.4092fc5a@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20050121201832.GB2866@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> writes: > All of these could easily be handled by storing the generated plists > from the ports cluster. That would also handle PLIST_FILE and > PLIST_DIRS which I use a lot for small ports. These still don't catch port WITH_* options that can be grepped in terms of files from a static pkg-plist. OK, PORTDOCS=* is a real killer option but DOCSDIR is a port-specific directory so collision arguments don't hold. *Sometimes* static pkg-plists are just too large. Look at the mail/cone port. -- Matthias Andree
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3k6q6az3v.fsf>