cvs commit: ports/games Makefile ports/games/linux-ut2003-demo Makefile distinfo pkg-descr ports/games/linux-ut2003-demo/files ut2003-demo.in

[Jean-Yves Lefort]

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:50:45 +0200
Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at Leidinger.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:40:37 +0200
> Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 18:51:22 +0200
> > Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at Leidinger.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:18:49 +0200
> > > Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > >  
> > > > > >   Log:
> > > > > >   Add linux-ut2003-demo.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why is it necessary to generate the plist at install time? As far as I
> > > > > can see the port installs a fixed set of files and doesn't do any magic
> > > > > to prevent the installation of files depending on a complex set of
> > > > > options or the state of the moon.
> > > > 
> > > > It reduces the size of the port by about 40kb, and eases future updates.
> > > 
> > > We had a discussion on ports@ a while ago: As long as there are no very
> > > urgent reasons to use a install-time generated plist a maintainer
> > > should (as in: we point with fingers on you if you don't do it) use a
> > > static plist since it is more beneficial for most people.
> > 
> > The pkg-plist/PLIST_*/MAN*/PORTDOCS/... set is not meant to be
> > human-readable. See x11/nvidia-driver/pkg-plist for an example.
> 
> They are human-readable ATM and a lot of procedures rely on this. There
> are always exceptions, but the ut demo ports don't need to be
> an exception. Please reread the thread I mentioned before you come up
> with other arguments since it's beaten to death already.

I disagree with your interpretation of human-readability.

The output of pkg_info -L is human-readable. A mixture of @exec,
PLIST_SUB, PLIST_FILES, PLIST_DIRS, MANn, MANLANG, PORTDOCS,
USE_RC_SUBR, GCONF_SCHEMAS (and so on, ad nauseam) is not.

> [suggestions about new metadata handling]
> 
> This is out of the scope of what I want to discuss, feel free to start
> a new thread with a meaningful subject.

No, my suggestions address all the concerns (minus the portlint one)
you raised in your January post to ports at .

-- 
Jean-Yves Lefort

jylefort at FreeBSD.org
http://lefort.be.eu.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/attachments/20050904/c31739e5/attachment.bin