cvs commit: ports/mail/dk-milter Makefile pkg-plist ports/mail/dk-milter/files milter-dk.sh.in

[Sam Lawrance]

On 17/01/2006, at 9:56 PM, Sam Lawrance wrote:

>
> On 17/01/2006, at 9:45 PM, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
>
>> Sam Lawrance píše v út 17. 01. 2006 v 21:39 +1100:
>>> Over to ports@ ...
>>>
>>> On 17/01/2006, at 10:50 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pav Lucistnik wrote:
>>>>> pav         2006-01-15 09:11:04 UTC
>>>>>
>>>>>   FreeBSD ports repository
>>>>>
>>>>>   Modified files:
>>>>>     mail/dk-milter       Makefile pkg-plist
>>>>>     mail/dk-milter/files milter-dk.sh.in
>>>>>   Log:
>>>>>   - Convert RC script to rc_subr
>>>>>
>>>>>   PR:             ports/91595  http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-
>>>>> pr.cgi?pr=91595
>>>>>   Submitted by:   Hirohisa Yamaguchi <umq at ueo.co.jp>
>>>>>
>>>>>   Revision  Changes    Path
>>>>>   1.6       +3 -2      ports/mail/dk-milter/Makefile
>>>>>   1.2       +43 -48    ports/mail/dk-milter/files/milter-dk.sh.in
>>>>>   1.2       +0 -1      ports/mail/dk-milter/pkg-plist
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/dk-milter/
>>>>> Makefile.diff?&r1=1.5&r2=1.6&f=h
>>>>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/dk-milter/files/
>>>>> milter-dk.sh.in.diff?&r1=1.1&r2=1.2&f=h
>>>>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/dk-milter/pkg-
>>>>> plist.diff?&r1=1.1&r2=1.2&f=h
>>>>
>>>> It's not a big enough issue to warrant a change for this port,  
>>>> but in
>>>> general it's a good idea if the name of the rc.d file is the same
>>>> as what
>>>> the script PROVIDE's. This removes one potential source of
>>>> confusion for users.
>>>
>>> Is it worth a patch to portlint?  There are probably a stack of  
>>> other
>>> rc-related things that could be checked for, too.  For example,  
>>> if an
>>> rc script is in the packing list, warn to use USE_RC_SUBR.  Others?
>>
>> If an rc.d script is in the packing list! Old styled scripts are not
>> affected. How will you check that from portlint?
>
> Some grepwork?  I've seen people put new-style rc.d scripts in the  
> packing list and install them in a post-install target.

For example, a quick and incomplete grep shows that these ports have  
an etc/*.sh script entry in the packing list, which contains the  
string PROVIDE.

Some roll their own substitution and install target instead of using  
USE_RC_SUBR.
Some do USE_RC_SUBR=yes (another check, I know Pav was tracking this  
problem at some stage).
One or two just still have the rc.d script in the packing list, even  
though USE_RC_SUBR takes care of it.

/s/ports/net/3proxy/files/3proxy.sh.in:# PROVIDE: threeproxy
/s/ports/japanese/Canna/files/canna.sh.in:# PROVIDE: canna
/s/ports/mail/couriergraph/files/couriergraph.sh.in:# PROVIDE:  
couriergraph
/s/ports/net/freenet6/files/freenet6.sh.in:# PROVIDE: freenet6
/s/ports/www/junkbuster/files/junkbuster.sh.in:# PROVIDE: junkbuster
/s/ports/www/nginx/files/nginx.sh.in:# PROVIDE: nginx
/s/ports/net/gnu-radius/files/radiusd.sh.in:# PROVIDE radiusd
/s/ports/net/vncreflector/files/vncreflector.sh.in:# PROVIDE:  
vncreflector
/s/ports/net/vls/files/vlsd.sh.in:# PROVIDE: vlsd