svn commit: r322444 - head/Tools/scripts

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 04:23:05PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 7/8/2013 4:12 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> >> A few options with no preference for any particular one:
> >> (a) Mk/ even though it isn't actually a .mk file.
> >> (b) Tools/infrastructure is also okay.
> >> (c) as part of the d4p tarball / port
> >>
> >> Tools/scripts is primarily third party utilities so its not as obvious
> >> that there are critical files in the directory.
> > 
> > Agreed, if I were to check out a "minimal" tree I would not think to
> > include Tools.
> > I'd think Mk/ would be a good place for it---checking out Mk/ should
> > give you all the
> > pieces you need, and dialog4ports.sh is now a critical part of the ports
> > build system.

So is d4p port itself.  Why not just bundle it there?  Mk/ is not really for
helper shell scripts, even critical ones.

> Tools/ also includes required scripts for building INDEX. You would also
> need Templates/ from the root to build ports. This is not new. People
> should be more careful when removing scripts marked as
> portmgr-maintained, modifying files maintained by others, etc.

I would either leave it under Tools/, or moved inside d4p (port or its
distfile).  Tools/infrastructure/ looks too overengineered to me, its like
solving a problem that is actually not a problem. ;-)

./danfe