Wesley Shields wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 10:38:42AM -0600, Scot Hetzel wrote: >> The bsd.port.mk patch could be changed to: >> >> .if (${OSVERSION} > 602100 && ${OSVERSION} < 700000) || ${OSVERSION} > >> 700027 >> PKGDISTFILE= "comment distfile" >> .else >> PKGDISTFILE="distfile" >> .endif >> : >> : >> - ${ECHO_CMD} "@distfle $${file}" >> ${TMPPLIST}; \ >> + ${ECHO_CMD} "@${PKGDISTFILE} $${file}" >> ${TMPPLIST}; \ >> >> This would allow the bsd.port.mk patch be added, without having to >> update the pkg_install tools on older systems. >> >> Then the ports tools (portupgrade, portmaster, ..) could be changed to >> look for either "@distfile" or "@comment distfile" in the +CONTENTS >> file.
@distfile is cleaner, but are you saying that we can add the comment even if pkg_create doesn't have special knowledge of the @distfile stuff? If so, isn't the sense of your test reversed? /me confused :) Meanwhile, for the record you're right that adding code to portmaster to parse either format is not hard. It'll be much less work than what I've got there now. :) Given that I'm about to release a new version of portmaster, I'd really like to get this change in now if I can. Can we reach a consensus (portmgr?) that what Scot proposed is how it will be done, even if we don't agree on the mechanics or timing yet? > I was going to suggest wrapping the patch in an OSVERSION check for the > proper pkg_info update, however I think your approach is better. To me it seems odd that pkg_create has to know about every line in the tmp plist. (Having pkg_info know about it is nice too, but not necessary to make the mechanics of the change work.) Would it not be a better idea to update pkg_create so that it simply packages up what's there? Is there a benefit to pkg_create having special knowledge about the details like this? > I'm going to make it ignore the -F flag when there are no recorded > distfiles (and document this fact in the manpage). Good change. > As for the discussion: > I did find an old thread[1] which discusses this. The point was raised > that +CONTENTS is probably not the perfect place for this, to which I > agree. But putting it in +DISTINFO will require more complexity than > embedding it in +CONTENTS. The argument could be made that recording > the distfiles which were used to make the contents justifies the > existence of their names in +CONTENTS (as a @comment). There is already enough "other" stuff in the +CONTENTS file that this isn't an issue for me, but if others have strong opinions on this point let's air them out. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"