Subject: Auto-generating PLIST vs. FAKE
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Marc Espie <Marc.Espie@liafa.jussieu.fr>
Date: 09/05/2000 14:16:25
Actually, when OpenBSD switched to FAKE for most of its packages, we decided
to keep manual packing-lists for a few reasons.
First, because this forces the porter to have a look at the packing-list,
which is very good for catching glitches. I am afraid a human eye is
always required in such matters.
Second, because this does not need to be tedious: it is quite possible to have
a script that generates very good packing-list approximations.
Finally, having the packing-lists part of the tree makes some automated
treatments easier: doing statistics on all packages from source, finding
packages that conflict due to common installed file, is much more
light-weight. It is also much easier for anyone to look directly at what
files a package contains just from the pkgsrc tree, without having to download
(usually) much larger binary packages, or recreate them.
|anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics...
|AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript...
| `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'