From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 25 16:49:28 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7228C1065673 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:49:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from mail.bsdforen.de (bsdforen.de [212.204.60.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF578FC1B for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:49:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mobileKamikaze.norad (unknown [88.130.217.237]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bsdforen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91848A170B; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:49:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4B86A9F2.6000007@bsdforen.de> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:48:50 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100216 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason References: <20100225052506.GA987@Jason-Helfmans-MacBook-Pro.local> <4B8633E5.4070605@bsdforen.de> <20100225155200.GA1833@Jason-Helfmans-MacBook-Pro.local> In-Reply-To: <20100225155200.GA1833@Jason-Helfmans-MacBook-Pro.local> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make package for ports, general question X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:49:28 -0000 On 25/02/2010 16:52, Jason wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 09:25:09AM +0100, Dominic Fandrey thus spake: >> On 25/02/2010 06:25, Jason wrote: >>> That being said, I ran into an item today that had me perplexed. >>> >>> Basically, it comes down to this: >>> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/pkg-install.html >>> >>> Why is it that "make package" doesn't include the execution instructions >>> noted in the Makefile. To me, with my new knowledge of the ports system, >>> seems like double the work for development and maintaining a port and >>> package. ... >> >> It's not like that at all. You should only add stuff into the ports >> Makefile that installs new files into the system. >> > > This make much more sense now. > >> Everything else, like creating groups and users, updating an index >> and so forth, should only be done in the pkg-install script. >> > > That's unfortunate for the user installation, as you can use the native > USERS directive in Makefiles to install users. I've started using local UID > and GID files to install users, and it has worked out rather well. I > suppose > removing the functionality from the Makefile, yet keeping those files > up-to-date for reference, is still a good idea. My error, USERS and GROUPS are official ports features and hence should be used. That kind of information also makes it into packages just fine. I don't maintain any ports that create users, so I overlooked it. Sorry for providing false information. > > Do: > > BINMODE > SHAREMODE > CHOWN > CHMOD > need to go into a pkg-install file? No, because the package is a tar archive that preserves these file properties. > I saw that there is a "Do & Dont's" on the todo list at wiki.freebsd.org > for > Ports. Maybe adding some of this information in there would be good. As you can see, the cases where a pkg-install script is actually needed are rather rare. Regards -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?