Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 08:28:13 -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: <200512030828.24558.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051203162134.02a8cb27@Magellan.Leidinger.net> References: <200511261918.jAQJIp91001719@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051202200407.0dd89f9b.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <20051203162134.02a8cb27@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 03 December 2005 07:21, the author Alexander Leidinger contributed to the dialogue on- Re: autoamtic plists (was: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/linux-openal bsd.linux.mk): >On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 20:04:07 +0100 > >Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> 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. > >Thanks. > >> > >> 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 > >And the metadata infrastructure you outlined in this thread isn't here. >So the concerns which are raised in the discussion starting in >http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2005-January/019974.html >can't be met. And they should be! > >Since your switch to install-time plist generation would result in >reduced usability of the ports tree, at least for those people which >are able to read a plist or at least how to extract some information >out of it, I ask you again to go the "commit the autogenerated plist" >way in bsd.linuxrpm.mk to respect POLA of those people (BTW: this would >be the majority of people which participated in the thread I started in >January). It doesn't result in much more work (just a "make new-plist") >and provides the same feature while addressing all concerns noted in >"my" thread. > >BTW: most of my commits today to the linux-* ports contained changes to >the plist which I autogenerated with the "new-plist" target of >x11-toolkits/linux-gtk. After autogenerating the plist I had to modify >the plist to DTRT. If you can come up with a smarter way of >autogenerating the plist, the work involved until you're be able to >commit a generated plist (after updating the version number of the port >and fetching the distfiles) is negligible. > >Bye, >Alexander. -- 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?200512030828.24558.vizion>