Subject: Re: unexpected behaviour of PKG_CONFIG=no ...
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Luke Mewburn <lukem@NetBSD.org>
Date: 04/23/2004 07:21:42
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:10:41PM +0200, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
| On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:49:08 +1000
| Luke Mewburn <lukem@NetBSD.org> wrote:
| > Why not unconditionally install all SUPPORT_FILES and
| > conditionally (based on PKG_CONFIG!=3DNO (?)) install CONF_FILES.
| > Otherwise, what's the effective difference between CONF_FILES
| > and SUPPORT_FILES, other than the variable name?
| Quoting bsd.pkg.install.mk:
| # CONF_FILES are pairs of example and true config files, used much like
| # MLINKS in the base system. At post-install time, if the true c=
| # file doesn't exist, then the example one is copied into place. =
| # deinstall time, the true one is removed if it doesn't differ fr=
| # example one. SUPPORT_FILES is used the same way, but the packa=
| # admin isn't prompted to customize the file at post-install time.
| I guess there may be some situations where it may be interesting to use
| SUPPORT_FILES to install files under PKG_SYSCONFDIR... or maybe not... =
| enabling their installation unconditionally doesn't seem TRT (WRT PKG_C=
| semantics) :P
I saw that in the documentation.
I still don't understand the point of SUPPORT_FILES versus CONF_FILES.=20
The current semantics of SUPPORT_FILES seem like
"here's an admin modifiable config file (so we don't install
it with PKG_CONFIG=3DNO) that we're not going to suggest to modify"
That seems ... pointless to me.
Obviously I'm missing something...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----