Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:47:33 +0400 From: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> To: Ulrich Spoerlein <uspoerlein@gmail.com> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Rubygems and trouble with rdoc node renumbering - ports/123112 Message-ID: <20080429224733.7bd495e9.stas@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20080429172617.GA1667@roadrunner.spoerlein.net> References: <20080425195933.GB1674@roadrunner.spoerlein.net> <20080425221824.GE70297@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <20080426081917.GA1694@roadrunner.spoerlein.net> <20080428230931.0e70a370.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20080429172617.GA1667@roadrunner.spoerlein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:26:17 +0200 Ulrich Spoerlein <uspoerlein@gmail.com> mentioned: > Is the numbering the same, as we get with my patch in the PR? Could you > please try this on a couple of ruby ports? > I'll try this evening. > Dynamically generated plists are usually not well received, as you > cannot know a priori what files the port will install. Since this only > affects port documentation, though, I think this would be ok. > > But you would have to add all files under the doc-prefix into this plist > *after* the port has been installed. This could spell trouble. > Not so much problem in fact, as rdoc files always install into the well-known location. It'd be much simpler than to rebuild pkg-plist of all ports by hand to comply with new sort scheme. Personally, I don't like an idea of putting files with dynamically generated names into pkg-plist at all. -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080429224733.7bd495e9.stas>