Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 10:43:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> To: Ying-Chieh Liao <ijliao@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Trevor Johnson <trevor@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11-toolkits/xclasses Makefile pkg-plist Message-ID: <20020526101813.K8013-100000@blues.jpj.net> In-Reply-To: <20020526135623.GA16449@terry.dragon2.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ying-Chieh Liao wrote: > does auto-generate plist a new trend ? :p No, I've been doing it for at least a year and a half, but as far as I've noticed no one else does. Its advantages are that: - it can save disk space when a large packing list is replaced by a few lines in a Makefile. For instance, ports/www/linux-netscape6/pkg-plist used to be 100 kB but now it is generated by 15 lines of code (which are shared among 5 different ports). - it saves an inode, or several inodes for packing lists which would have been pieced together from several files. - sometimes the generation can be done in such a way that no maintenance of the packing list is needed when the contents of the package change. The disadvantages are that: - users can't always tell what files will be installed by a port just by looking at the port skeleton. - sometimes it can be more work for the porter. If the INSTALL_ macros would register stuff in the packing list, the second disadvantage would go away, at least for ports that use those macros, as the Porter's Handbook recommends. -- Trevor Johnson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020526101813.K8013-100000>