Subject: Re: Package paths: consensus?
To: None <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Alistair Crooks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/14/1999 11:19:16
[ A resounding "hear, hear" to everything that Robert wrote. ]
> ps: while all this work on config file naming is being done, it would
> truly nice if there was an easy way to tell packages (both base and
> when they're compiled (I appreciate that this is way too hard for
> installations) what the basic file name of the config file should be.
As a quick workaround, adding to the definition of BUILD_DEFS in the
package Makefile will put this information into the +BUILD_DEFS file
which accompanies a binary package, and which can be displayed using
pkg_info. If we standardise on a definition name, such as
CONFIG_FILENAMES, then it may be possible to organise this value to be
placed in README.html, and the generated DESCRIPTION file automatically.
The value of the definition should be a list of files: postfix is one
(not-yet-committed) package which springs to mind which has multiple