>  * it's part of the dependancy chain now for a lot of packages, 
> 
> You are entitled to you opinion, but please don't misrepresent the
> facts.  They are not part of the dependency chain for any *packages*.

Sorry if the english I used was ambiguous - I should have said "to
install packages using sysinstall, and possibly the pkg_add tool as
well in the future, the INDEX file is part of the dependency chain."

This is indisputably true and if you'd care to argue the point, I'll
be happy to point you at the relevant source code.

> True, but all the INDEX files *I* make for package sets (and those are
> the only ones you ought to be using, since those are the only ones
> truly synced with the time of package builds) have the XFree86 stuff
> stripped. :)

This point is irrelevant for a number of reasons, only several of
which I will list here:

1. I'm hardly the only one who splits up package sets and/or makes
   FreeBSD ISO images and it's possible to derive an otherwise perfectly
   reasonable INDEX file from multiple sources.  It shouldn't be necessary
   to put a note on the file saying "go ask Satoshi if you want a sanitized
   INDEX file to use" and the very concept would violate POLA anyway.

2. Your INDEX files can frequently be out of date with the ports
   collection and someone should be able to do their own "make index"
   when that happens.

3. The assumption has always been that the dependency lists in the INDEX
   file will reflect one's best-effort attempt at providing all the
   packages so referenced in whatever package [sub]collection you're
   providing to someone.  In order to qualify for inclusion in this
   file, the XFree86 port should therefore be generating suitable
   packages and that is simply not [yet] the case.  The INDEX file
   certainly isn't for the ports - they already get the dependency
   information out of the Makefiles - it's for the packages and for
   rudimentary search features.

And I think I am on fairly safe ground when I tell you what the INDEX
file is for because I was the one to add it in the first place back in
1995, as the cvs log entry for ports/Makefile will cheerfully tell
you:

----------------------------
revision 1.8
date: 1995/01/14 11:27:06;  author: jkh;  state: Exp;  lines: +7 -1
1. Make an index rule
2. Commit an INDEX file containing information on the various ports.
----------------------------

I know when and why I added INDEX files and I know when and why you
added breakage to this mechanism, breakage you have been seemingly
unwilling to simply fix, preferring to back patch the end-product
instead of fixing the generation script OR providing the XFree86-3.3.4
meta-port which goes and loads the appropriate subcomponents and makes
the INDEX file entries "true" again.

To put it another way, consider me as Bruce and this as a really
egregious style(9) bug on your part.  You can argue about it forever,
but it won't make you any less wrong in the end. :)

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Reply via email to