On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Dmitry Marakasov <amd...@amdmi3.ru> wrote: > * Jeremy Messenger (me...@cox.net) wrote: > >>> So if I understand correctly, you're proposing to only use dynamic >>> plist generation for the ports that support it without modification, >>> i.e. autotools-based? >>> >>> My opinion is that we should support the feature for all ports, or don't >>> support it at all. Only getting rid of ~5k pkg-plists is not a huge >>> accomplishment considering the mess it causes and I doubt it's worth >>> the work on adding the feature to port.mk and then rebuilding and >>> testing all affected ports. Being able to forget about pkg-plists >>> once and forever however would be a huge accomplishment and if that's >>> possible it should be done sooner or later. >> >> I object on get rid of pkg-plist. I depend on pkg-plist too much. I think >> it's important for us to keep on track where the files/directories are. > > It's useful for me too sometimes, but it's already not 100% reliable, > as some ports still generate it dynamically, some use PLIST_FILES, some > use PLIST_SUB so it's not apparent under which path and/or name the file > mentioned in plist is actually installed.
Getting rid of the plist files will force a major rewrite of pkg_install. Are you really comfortable doing that :\? -Garrett _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
