Thanks! I'll go for the second variant then since the LICENSE is installed regardless of NOPORTDOCS.
On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 22:04 +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:27:53 +0100 > david fries <d...@gmx.ch> wrote: > > > Hello everybody > > > > I'm currently working on a tiny little port. It consists of a single > > binary and an accompanying LICENSE file. When I ran genplist, it > > generated this in pkg-plist.new: > > > > bin/mybinary > > %%PORTDOCS%%%%DOCSDIR%%/LICENSE > > %%portdoc...@dirrm %%DOCSDIR%% > > > > Simple enough. However, I also know that the LICENSE file will also be > > installed if NOPORTDOCS has been defined. I thought maybe I should > > write something like this. > > > > bin/mybinary > > %%DOCSDIR%%/LICENSE > > @dirrm %%DOCSDIR%% > > If you install the LICENCE file depending on NOPORTDOCS, the you should > keep the first variant; if not, the second. First is what you should do. > > _______________________________________________ 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"
