James Cook <[email protected]> writes: >> Would you like to try your hand in extending post-install target with >> some man formatting magic like we have in other ports? > > Done (commit a1c5aec8) in my "git-annex" branch: > > https://github.com/falsifian/ports/commits/git-annex
Very nice! > It's not pretty. I replicated some logic from Build/Man.hs, which is > called from Setup.hs. Some quick observations. Makefile allows line-continuation with \ and this is how people write long command lines. The for loop would be more readable if it were split like that. I also don't see a lot of places in ports make files with quotes around variables. I suspect we just expect people to not go nuts with spaces in directory names when building ports. > Normally cabal v2-install would do that work for > us (putting the result in .cabal/store/ghc-XXX/git-annex-XXX) but I > don't know if it's worth getting that working. > > Caveat: I took a shortcut when testing this: instead of re-running > "make build" I just made the post-build target after adding this in. > I'll try building from scratch later if you don't beat me to it. I believe `make rebuild` should reuse the cabal built pieces. post-build seems like a reasonable place for this kind of work. Alternatively sticking those man-formatting commands into post-install also seems acceptable to me. > On that branch I also removed the runtime dep on devel/git-lfs (it's > just one of a large number of optional backends). Good call. >> From what I gathered the v2-install target is largely unusable for >> installing packages outside of .cabal tree. At least neither I nor >> FreeBSD maintainer found a way to leverage that. Hence the manual >> install flow. > > I probably don't know all the subtleties, but when I run > "cabal v2-install", I get a nice set of files under > ~/.cabal/ghc-XXX/git-annex-XXX, including the man pages and all three > needed binaries. I would guess that just copying those files to the > destination would do the trick for most cabal executable packages, but > I haven't actually tried it. Maybe it's better to be cautious. I'll dig into this a bit. I simply didn't need to worry about this up until now as all the other ports don't do much custom Setup.hs work. Thanks Greg
