Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 22:15:23 -0400 (EDT) From: James FitzGibbon <james@ican.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Should this port go in ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.960828221232.27041D-100000@expresslane.ca> In-Reply-To: <960828191024.ZM21365@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> I'm forced to agree with Chuck - I don't see where the dynamic PLIST behavior
> makes sense in a port where no such dynamism is required, and anyone else
> looking at this port is going to be left wondering just why it's so darn
> complicated. The dynamic PLIST file is still a reasonable idea, and one I'd
> use if the port had a highly interactive install which selectively copied only
> certain components of the port into place. Then you could conceivably use one
> port to generate several different packages, each with a slightly different
> intended audience. Just don't fall in love with the idea so much that you
> start obfuscating ports unnecessarily - that's all I'm asking! :)
What about the issue of compressed vs. uncompressed manpages ? To solve
this, I could just make two PLISTS in ${FILESDIR}, and based on the
variable NOMANCOMPRESS copy one or the other into ${PKGDIR} before the
install was registered. Acceptable ?
I agree with both of you on the complexity of the Makefile. It's damn
ugly looking at it a couple of hours later. Ah, how the youthful glow
does dim. I'll save it for ports that need it.
--
j.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James FitzGibbon james@ican.net |
| Internet Canada Corp. Voice/Fax: 416-363-8518/8713 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.95.960828221232.27041D-100000>