Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:40:50 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: ports@freebsd.org, lukasz@wasikowski.net Subject: Re: State of the Porters' Handbook Message-ID: <526E3F32.2040704@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <526E3BC2.6030004@marino.st> References: <526E234F.3090005@bsdforen.de> <526E2492.9080107@wasikowski.net> <526E2600.9010409@bsdforen.de> <526E272D.3040607@marino.st> <526E2E8D.3020109@bsdforen.de> <526E2FB8.5060906@marino.st> <526E3454.60501@bsdforen.de> <526E3685.4070306@marino.st> <526E3986.7050304@bsdforen.de> <526E3BC2.6030004@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28/10/2013 11:26, John Marino wrote: > On 10/28/2013 11:16, Dominic Fandrey wrote: >> On 28/10/2013 11:03, John Marino wrote: >>> If there are files in those directories, they'll be on the plist and >>> stage handles them. I'd have to look up how to create empty directories >>> properly. >> >> Stage replaceses strings in installed files? > > No, the port does that kind of thing in the stage directory. After > everything is installed there in the stage directory, they are packaged > or installed into the $PREFIX > >> I can see the benefits for less error prone package building. But right now >> it's just additional work coming my way. > > You really need to get a better grasp of the concept. There are several > emails from bapt that may help. For new ports it's not "additional" > work and for existing ports, yes there is a conversion but the benefits > are worth it. > >>> 2. Stage is not going away. There is not another option. >>> 3. You've been given a source of documentation. It's not in the >>> handbook, but it does exist in some form. What more do you need to >>> progress? >> >> There is a procedure. Stuff belongs into the handbook. Stick to it. > > Fine, but it's a huge topic that somebody has to write and validate. > You're willing to criticize (justified) but unwilling to help rectify > the problem. Well, bsd.stage.mk isn't well commented either. I think right now only the person who implemented it could write reasonable documentation. > If you only want to complain, I think you've made your > point (a point that everyone is already aware of). > > FYI, I have no dog in the hunt other than I believe stage is a welcome > update to ports. 1. Implementation 2. Testing 3. Documentation 4. Mandatory We're in stage 2 and it's already mandatory. I'm not against staging, I'm against making things prematurely mandatory. -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?526E3F32.2040704>