Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:40:09 -0800 (PST) From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/59070: [PATCH] bsd.port.mk: unexpected features of PORTDOCS Message-ID: <200311090340.hA93e9eP029902@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/59070; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
To: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org>
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/59070: [PATCH] bsd.port.mk: unexpected features of PORTDOCS
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 04:30:26 +0100
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 03:42:42AM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
>
>>- Every package that defines PORTDOCS gets
>> `@unexec rmdir ${DOCSDIR} 2>/dev/null || true'
>> added to the packing list. The documetation states to define PORTDOCS only if
>> documentation is installed, but for example port net/ngrep does:
>>
>> PORTDOCS= BUGS CHANGES README README.pcre USAGE
>
> Hmm... that's my fault, I didn't read the bsd.port.mk.
I can't blame you. Nobody reads the documentation, so I have to handle it.
And I think your usage is legitimate.
> I think that PORTDOCS should only be checked in bsd.port.mk if
> NOPORTDOCS is not set. The reason for it? It adds it automaticly,
> so it should check if all pre-requesites[sp] for adding them are
> met.
PORTDOCS actually does a `find' and adds only those files that are really
installed. Some ports are not NOPORTDOCS friendly, so I don't want to do that.
You can keep your code, currently you get
@cwd /usr/local
@unexec rmdir %D/share/doc/ngrep 2>/dev/null || true
appended to the packing list, which causes no harm. With this patch, you won't
even get those two lines.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200311090340.hA93e9eP029902>