Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 11:51:42 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: koobs@FreeBSD.org, Carlo Strub <cs@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Cc: clutton@zoho.com Subject: Re: svn commit: r367404 - in head/security: . webshag webshag/files Message-ID: <540AD92E.5030602@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <540AD4A8.4050705@FreeBSD.org> References: <201409060746.s867kwJ4038485@svn.freebsd.org> <540AD4A8.4050705@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/6/2014 11:32, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 6/09/2014 5:46 PM, Carlo Strub wrote:
>> +LICENSE= GPLv3
>
> LICENSE_FILE
I know mat's position, but this decree was definitely controversial.
Many people don't agree that LICENSE_FILE is needed when the provided
license is identical to the one offered in ports Templates directory.
And since the licensing framework is still an unsupported and mostly
undocumented red-headed stepchild of ports, I don't think I agree with
saying this was an error.
>> +bin/webshag_cli
>> +%%WXGTK%%bin/webshag_gui
>> +%%ETCDIR%%.conf
>
> Does this need a filename?
This is probably a wonderful side effect of make makeplist which
aggressively creates SUB replacements, often incorrectly.
This was probably /etc/${PORTNAME}.conf and it got transformed and
submitter didn't check closely enough.
I agree, DO NOT TRUST MAKEPLIST FURTHER THAN YOU CAN THROW IT!
John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?540AD92E.5030602>