Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:49:00 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r406930 - head/archivers/file-roller Message-ID: <56A619BC.7080802@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20160125123904.GA96711@FreeBSD.org> References: <201601221319.u0MDJbbm075196@repo.freebsd.org> <20160125085654.GB95732@FreeBSD.org> <56A5EFD5.8080804@marino.st> <20160125123904.GA96711@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/25/2016 1:39 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:50:13AM +0100, John Marino wrote: > > Hmm, but how is the fact that zipinfo is a symlink $LOCALBASE/bin/unzip is > irrelevant? The port wants unzip (not zipinfo), and the granule of change > is a line; regardless of the contents, it's -1 +1. Not really. In my view, what it _wants_ is to register the package. It doesn't matter what causes the register, only that it's registered. I could have just as easily requested a man page and it would still work as intended. Now, for those susceptible to pedantism, I can see how it would seem less correct but the whole "_DEPENDS" scheme is like this. We don't list *every* file a port might depend on, we just pick one. That one file is enough to create the registry. Given that point of view, and given that zipinfo cannot exist without unzip, I see those as equivalent. TLDR; Whatever guarantees the dependency registry is correct enough because the actual file is can never be considered representative of the true requirement. > >> I saw the two as equal and thus "dealer's choice" and I chose the latter. > > Having to add an explanatory comment makes it -1 +n, so the two get a little > less equal once you consider this. ;-) Maybe, but I wanted somebody to pause before changing it in the future. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56A619BC.7080802>