On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 04:04:58PM +0100, Michael Gmelin wrote: > On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:56:46 +0100 > Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:40:50AM +0100, Dominic Fandrey wrote: > > > On 28/10/2013 11:26, John Marino wrote: > > > > On 10/28/2013 11:16, Dominic Fandrey wrote: > > > >> On 28/10/2013 11:03, John Marino wrote: > > > >>> If there are files in those directories, they'll be on the > > > >>> plist and stage handles them. I'd have to look up how to > > > >>> create empty directories properly. > > > >> > > > >> Stage replaceses strings in installed files? > > > > > > > > No, the port does that kind of thing in the stage directory. > > > > After everything is installed there in the stage directory, they > > > > are packaged or installed into the $PREFIX > > > > > > > >> I can see the benefits for less error prone package building. > > > >> But right now it's just additional work coming my way. > > > > > > > > You really need to get a better grasp of the concept. There are > > > > several emails from bapt that may help. For new ports it's not > > > > "additional" work and for existing ports, yes there is a > > > > conversion but the benefits are worth it. > > > > > > > >>> 2. Stage is not going away. There is not another option. > > > >>> 3. You've been given a source of documentation. It's not in the > > > >>> handbook, but it does exist in some form. What more do you > > > >>> need to progress? > > > >> > > > >> There is a procedure. Stuff belongs into the handbook. Stick to > > > >> it. > > > > > > > > Fine, but it's a huge topic that somebody has to write and > > > > validate. You're willing to criticize (justified) but unwilling > > > > to help rectify the problem. > > > > > > Well, bsd.stage.mk isn't well commented either. I think right now > > > only the person who implemented it could write reasonable > > > documentation. > > > > > > > If you only want to complain, I think you've made your > > > > point (a point that everyone is already aware of). > > > > > > > > FYI, I have no dog in the hunt other than I believe stage is a > > > > welcome update to ports. > > > > > > 1. Implementation > > > 2. Testing > > > 3. Documentation > > > 4. Mandatory > > > > > > We're in stage 2 and it's already mandatory. I'm not against > > > staging, I'm against making things prematurely mandatory. > > > > With that kind of reasoning we get the ports tree we have now. > > Meaning a pile of inconsistent, inefficient things, and things like > > UNIQUENAME not being UNIQUE etc. > > > > the stage work is a 3 years work almost, that has been half > > abandonned, a lot of time. > > > > Documentation on how to convert has been done on the wiki before > > making staging mandatory and completed since. > > > > Documentation for the handbook is another beast because the whole > > handbook as to be touched and reviewed, and I ask a couple of time to > > people to help me documenting on the handbook. > > > > I don't buy the opinion that the handbook is totally outdated, all > > the features I added but stage are in the handbook including shebang > > fix ! so perhaps that can be improved but that is there. > > > > Before committing the stage support I made sure that all previous > > things has been documented. > > > > and sorry but my priority is to have the ports tree back into a sane > > state where we have consistency and sane packages, do documentation > > has much as I can and I try to avoid having too much latency for > > documentation. > > > > Bapt > > I agree for the most part, the only suggestion I'd make is to reference > undocumented features in the Porter's Handbook and link to their Wiki > pages - that should be a matter of minutes and would make sure that > people starting from the handbook get the complete picture. > It's really hard for newcomers not following ports@ to find this bit of > information otherwise, especially since the Wiki is not that well > organized (staging is not even on the Wiki's frontpage). E.g. > > Section X: Staging > Staging is mandatory for new ports, it's not documented in here yet, > but details can be found in the FreeBSD wiki (link to staging support > page). >
I do buy this argument :) and I'll see want I can do for that in the next couple of days. regards, Bapt
pgpveCs0qtYF3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
