Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 11:19:43 -0800 From: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@freebsd.org>, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: autoamtic plists (was: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/linux-openal bsd.linux.mk) Message-ID: <200512021119.57375.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051202200407.0dd89f9b.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> References: <200511261918.jAQJIp91001719@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051202180608.nvo7zkvp1wswkcs0@netchild.homeip.net> <20051202200407.0dd89f9b.jylefort@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 02 December 2005 11:04, the author Jean-Yves Lefort contributed to the dialogue on- Re: autoamtic plists (was: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/linux-openal bsd.linux.mk): >On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:06:08 +0100 > >Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote: >> >> >> - why do you use different ways of specifying the paths in DESCR >> >> >> and MD5_FILE? >> >> >> - why do you specify DESCR at all? >> >> > >> >> > The idea is to use the FreeBSD native port's pkg-descr. >> >> >> >> I don't think this is good. I think the descr should mention that the >> >> ports provide the linux versions of the port. >> > >> > It's obvious from the package name and comment. But once again, people >> > are free to bypass this helper if they don't like it. >> >> It may be obvious for us, but not obvious for others. I like it to be >> unambiguos. Let's do it the other way around (POLA): If someone want's to >> override it, he can set it to the FreeBSD port description in the port >> itself. > >Shrug. Ok. > >> >> automatic plist generator to write their own plists. It also allows to >> >> look up the contents of the port without a need to install it. And >> >> we're able to answer questions like "which port installs file X". So we >> >> get the good features of both worlds, don't you think? >> > >> > I've added new-plist and NO_AUTOMATIC_PLIST for auto plist haters. >> >> This doesn't address the "lookup" and "will-be-installed-by" parts above >> (ok, they are the same, but...). These are major topics. You can read on >> ports@ from this week about someone who tries to write an application >> which does something like this but has problems because of the automatic >> plists. Having the static plists (auto-generated or by hand) in the tree, >> also helps in support requests, since someone with experience just can >> tell "install port X" to a newbie, even if he doesn't know anything about >> the port in question himself. >> >> So there's demand, and we mostly can satisfy it, but when we go the "all >> automatic" way, we can't anymore. >> >> I can understand that with a really good automatic mechanism, there will >> be less errors in the plist (specially some like those I produced in the >> last two weeks), but we can have the good part of this mechanism and the >> good part of plists in the tree just with the "new-plist" target. >> >> Are there any technical arguments which makes it mandatory to use your >> version of install-time generated plists instead of my proposal to commit >> the automatically generated plist? > >We have already discussed this: > >http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/2005-September/071826.html I feel the alternative arguments have merit and am not over-whelmed by the way in which you dismiss those contentions. It seems disrespectful. david -- 40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters. English Owner & Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Taurus. Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing bound for Europe via Panama Canal after completing engineroom refit.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200512021119.57375.vizion>