Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:56:53 +1100 From: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au> To: pav@FreeBSD.org Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/dk-milter Makefile pkg-plist ports/mail/dk-milter/files milter-dk.sh.in Message-ID: <12B98969-6186-4CA7-A3C6-11F5F36E2E1C@brooknet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <1137494743.38904.41.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> References: <200601150911.k0F9B6eG062331@repoman.freebsd.org> <43CC3140.9040604@FreeBSD.org> <8F69821A-31A2-4E2D-A9E9-5CE1BEB2EE1F@brooknet.com.au> <1137494743.38904.41.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17/01/2006, at 9:45 PM, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Sam Lawrance p=ED=9Ae v =FAt 17. 01. 2006 v 21:39 +1100: >> Over to ports@ ... >> >> On 17/01/2006, at 10:50 AM, Doug Barton wrote: >> >>> Pav Lucistnik wrote: >>>> pav 2006-01-15 09:11:04 UTC >>>> >>>> FreeBSD ports repository >>>> >>>> Modified files: >>>> mail/dk-milter Makefile pkg-plist >>>> mail/dk-milter/files milter-dk.sh.in >>>> Log: >>>> - Convert RC script to rc_subr >>>> >>>> PR: ports/91595 http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query- >>>> pr.cgi?pr=3D91595 >>>> Submitted by: Hirohisa Yamaguchi <umq@ueo.co.jp> >>>> >>>> Revision Changes Path >>>> 1.6 +3 -2 ports/mail/dk-milter/Makefile >>>> 1.2 +43 -48 ports/mail/dk-milter/files/milter-dk.sh.in >>>> 1.2 +0 -1 ports/mail/dk-milter/pkg-plist >>>> >>>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/dk-milter/ >>>> Makefile.diff?&r1=3D1.5&r2=3D1.6&f=3Dh >>>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/dk-milter/files/ >>>> milter-dk.sh.in.diff?&r1=3D1.1&r2=3D1.2&f=3Dh >>>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/dk-milter/pkg- >>>> plist.diff?&r1=3D1.1&r2=3D1.2&f=3Dh >>> >>> It's not a big enough issue to warrant a change for this port, =20 >>> but in >>> general it's a good idea if the name of the rc.d file is the same >>> as what >>> the script PROVIDE's. This removes one potential source of >>> confusion for users. >> >> Is it worth a patch to portlint? There are probably a stack of other >> rc-related things that could be checked for, too. For example, if an >> rc script is in the packing list, warn to use USE_RC_SUBR. Others? > > If an rc.d script is in the packing list! Old styled scripts are not > affected. How will you check that from portlint? Some grepwork? I've seen people put new-style rc.d scripts in the =20 packing list and install them in a post-install target.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?12B98969-6186-4CA7-A3C6-11F5F36E2E1C>