On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 04:56:22PM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:50:30 +0200 Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 02:56:14PM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > >> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:25:39 +0200 Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> > >> wrote: > >>> On of the most borring thing IMHO in the plist maintainance is all the > >>> directories. > >> > >> Another idea is to support shell glob patterns (*?[) in pkg-plist. This > >> is possible now thanks to staging. It would allow moving PORTDOCS, > >> PORTDATA and PORTEXAMPLES to pkg-plist. But more importantly, it would > >> allow automatic plists that some ports create in post-install to be > >> turned back into a real pkg-plist. Without glob patterns some pkg-plists > >> are just too long or too complicated depending on options. > > > > We could also say pack everything that is in that stage directory. > > > > The problem is right now I do like static plist because if something > > fails to build for $reason, that the plist doesn't find a file in the > > staging area and we notice quite quickly that something as failed. > > with autoplist or globbing we do lose this feature and we need to way > > deal with it. > > In anycase we won't make full autoplist because we still need to be > > able to specify credentials files per files if needed. But glob is > > really appealing :) > > I completely agree :) Files should be listed explicitly if possible, > but sometimes it's very inconvenient and in these cases some ports > roll their own autoplist implementations which worse than having a > static pkg-plist with a few glob patterns. > > Moving PORTDOCS etc. to pkg-plist means all package content is listed > in one file. That will probably simplify check-plist too.
Right I'll implement globbing (one level not recursive) regards, Bapt
pgpxmAGIaLcg0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
