Subject: Re: hardcoded etc/rc.d in PLISTs instead of RCD_SCRIPTS_EXAMPLEDIR
To: NetBSD Packages Technical Discussion List <>
From: Alistair Crooks <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 03/22/2003 17:47:48
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 01:39:58PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Friday, March 21, 2003 at 10:15:38 (-0800), Jeremy C. Reed wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: hardcoded etc/rc.d in PLISTs instead of RCD_SCRIPTS_EXAMPLEDIR
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Julio Merino wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't agree with this.  It is better if PLIST's contain all files
> > > installed under localbase, so you can grep them... and print-plist just
> > > works; no need to remove those files from the plist when creating or
> > > updating a package...
> > 
> > Maybe the print-PLIST can check for the RCD_SCRIPTS_EXAMPLEDIR and place
> > some @comment in front of it.
> Oh that "print-PLIST"!  What a broken useless piece of junk!  :-)
> Seriously though anyone using "print-PLIST" had better have a _LOT_ more
> of a clue than expecting that thing to work properly in all cases!
> Even more seriously:  Now we have the METALOG facility in "install" I
> don't see why we can't use it as an initial PLIST-maker instead of that
> most bogus and lame attempt at using find -- then "print-PLIST" might
> even work without having to be chrooted.  The RCD_SCRIPTS installer
> could then easily avoid triggering a METALOG entry and all would be good.

It's a good thing that we know you, Greg, or, with all the agression
and negative attitude in your sentences, we'd think you were just a

The reason we don't use the METALOG facility in "install" is because
that version of install isn't the same across all platforms, and
because packages use a lot more than just install(1) to put files in
the right place.