Subject: Re: Auto-generating PLIST vs. FAKE
To: Marc Espie <Marc.Espie@liafa.jussieu.fr>
From: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/05/2000 23:10:19
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Marc Espie wrote:
> 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.
Yah, that's why the comment in bsd.pkg.mk before the print-PLIST advises
to "|brain" the output... Maybe I should print this as the first line
that that target prints. ;-)
> 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.
OK. Now, what do you use the automatic PLIST generation for then, if you
still store PLISTs in the ports source? As a tool to generate and
verify pkg/PLIST as print-PLIST is used in NetBSD, or for more?
Hubert Feyrer <email@example.com>