Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:36:06 +0100
From:      david fries <djf@gmx.ch>
To:        Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Question about pkg-plist
Message-ID:  <1264970166.2975.19.camel@sphinx.doesntexist.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100131220419.52d53c65@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
References:  <1264966073.2975.17.camel@sphinx.doesntexist.org> <20100131220419.52d53c65@it.buh.tecnik93.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks!

I'll go for the second variant then since the LICENSE is installed
regardless of NOPORTDOCS.

On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 22:04 +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:27:53 +0100
> david fries <djf@gmx.ch> wrote:
> 
> > Hello everybody
> > 
> > I'm currently working on a tiny little port. It consists of a single
> > binary and an accompanying LICENSE file. When I ran genplist, it
> > generated this in pkg-plist.new:
> > 
> > bin/mybinary
> > %%PORTDOCS%%%%DOCSDIR%%/LICENSE
> > %%PORTDOCS%%@dirrm %%DOCSDIR%%
> > 
> > Simple enough. However, I also know that the LICENSE file will also be
> > installed if NOPORTDOCS has been defined. I thought maybe I should
> > write something like this. 
> > 
> > bin/mybinary
> > %%DOCSDIR%%/LICENSE
> > @dirrm %%DOCSDIR%%
> 
> If you install the LICENCE file depending on NOPORTDOCS, the you should
> keep the first variant; if not, the second. First is what you should do.
> 
> 





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1264970166.2975.19.camel>