Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 21:41:44 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: James FitzGibbon <james@nexis.net> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Opinions of port vs package please Message-ID: <7465.839220104@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 05 Aug 1996 00:21:14 EDT." <Pine.BSI.3.94.960805001557.12034A-100000@bdd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Let's say the port allows you to choose which binaries it will build.
> When making the package, I plan to build all the binaries rather than
> second guess the people using it. So, I put all the installed binaries
> into the PLIST. Now, if the program is installed as a port rather than a
> package, the list of installed files might be incorrect, depending on
> which binaries that person chose to install.
There's one easy solution, though you probably won't like it. :-)
Override the fake-pkg target in your ports Makefile and have it
synthesize a PLIST rather than using the pkg/PLIST file. You could
even make it an easier task to use just _part_ of the pkg/PLIST file
(for all the invariant pieces) by surrounding those parts with
`@comment <sometoken>' lines. Then you just append entries for each
binary you've selected to install and whap the results into
${PKG_DBDIR}/${PKGNAME}/PLIST directly. Voila. Problem solved.
Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7465.839220104>