Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 17:13:21 +0100 From: Julien Laffaye <jlaffaye@FreeBSD.org> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org>, Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com>, ports@freebsd.org, ohauer@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers -- CONF_FILES variable Message-ID: <4E109521.10209@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgnkxuGcNk8O7vz0aLFBo2jLU-G%2BxaXSAS1Zvik2%2B%2BYtiw@mail.gmail.com> References: <BANLkTikvMU2dK=aN=hFgxA8wfvUitmfbRA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinBC184bwcQ1Sfyy9xsw9usqr3SJQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=nQByFgGNP--hkA4AF04Sw95s8jw@mail.gmail.com> <4E0C5B7A.5060102@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgnkxuGcNk8O7vz0aLFBo2jLU-G%2BxaXSAS1Zvik2%2B%2BYtiw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/03/2011 16:30, Eitan Adler wrote: > (I hope this isn't bikeshedding) > > I would much prefer this method over choosing an unusual suffix. There > is much documentation on the internet that assumes certain things > about packaging. Many times INSTALL files will tell the user to > looking for a .sample file or .conf file. It would be odd and annoying > to have the sample configuration file on certain versions of FreeBSD > be different than everyone else. Also, as others have stated, pkgconf > sounds like something FreeBSD specific - not a application specific > suffix. > > As a general note: why does pkgng care about the file suffix at all? > The pkg program should just be "dumb" about it and follow whatever the > pkg-plist says to do. The .pkgconf suffix tells pkgng that this file is a sample. But it could also be done via an attribute. Doing stuff with @exec or scripts should be for special cases, not for common cases such as config files.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E109521.10209>