Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:37:24 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Cc: Doug@gorean.org, sheldonh@uunet.co.za, vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org? Message-ID: <1871.933233844@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:27:24 PDT." <199907271927.MAA38591@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * it's part of the dependancy chain now for a lot of packages, > > You are entitled to you opinion, but please don't misrepresent the > facts. They are not part of the dependency chain for any *packages*. Sorry if the english I used was ambiguous - I should have said "to install packages using sysinstall, and possibly the pkg_add tool as well in the future, the INDEX file is part of the dependency chain." This is indisputably true and if you'd care to argue the point, I'll be happy to point you at the relevant source code. > True, but all the INDEX files *I* make for package sets (and those are > the only ones you ought to be using, since those are the only ones > truly synced with the time of package builds) have the XFree86 stuff > stripped. :) This point is irrelevant for a number of reasons, only several of which I will list here: 1. I'm hardly the only one who splits up package sets and/or makes FreeBSD ISO images and it's possible to derive an otherwise perfectly reasonable INDEX file from multiple sources. It shouldn't be necessary to put a note on the file saying "go ask Satoshi if you want a sanitized INDEX file to use" and the very concept would violate POLA anyway. 2. Your INDEX files can frequently be out of date with the ports collection and someone should be able to do their own "make index" when that happens. 3. The assumption has always been that the dependency lists in the INDEX file will reflect one's best-effort attempt at providing all the packages so referenced in whatever package [sub]collection you're providing to someone. In order to qualify for inclusion in this file, the XFree86 port should therefore be generating suitable packages and that is simply not [yet] the case. The INDEX file certainly isn't for the ports - they already get the dependency information out of the Makefiles - it's for the packages and for rudimentary search features. And I think I am on fairly safe ground when I tell you what the INDEX file is for because I was the one to add it in the first place back in 1995, as the cvs log entry for ports/Makefile will cheerfully tell you: ---------------------------- revision 1.8 date: 1995/01/14 11:27:06; author: jkh; state: Exp; lines: +7 -1 1. Make an index rule 2. Commit an INDEX file containing information on the various ports. ---------------------------- I know when and why I added INDEX files and I know when and why you added breakage to this mechanism, breakage you have been seemingly unwilling to simply fix, preferring to back patch the end-product instead of fixing the generation script OR providing the XFree86-3.3.4 meta-port which goes and loads the appropriate subcomponents and makes the INDEX file entries "true" again. To put it another way, consider me as Bruce and this as a really egregious style(9) bug on your part. You can argue about it forever, but it won't make you any less wrong in the end. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1871.933233844>