On Wed, 5 May 2004 15:48:17 -0700 (PDT), "Jeremy C. Reed" writes:
>I see that mk-files has an install-mk and an auto PLIST generation
>for choosing what mk files to install.

My initial reaction is that a binary package of mk-files is a bad
idea.

If you want to do a binary package though I think it would be
best to use Generic.sys.mk which will attempt to include the OS
sepcific sys.mk - it probably needs more work btw ;-)

>The README.1st says:
>
>  The *.sys.mk files should be installed as sys.mk on the appropriate
>  machine.
>
>But as you can see above I have nothing to symlink my sys.mk to.

Yep, the auto PLIST thing isn't quite what you want - I've not looked
at that bit for years.  I'm pretty sure it pre-dates install-mk

>I don't know why I don't have the many per operating system files.

Because you probably built the pkg on a BSD system.

>I see a FORCE_SYS_MK. Can we have some option that always enables this to
>do a symlink?
>
>Will it break some systems to always install all mk files to /usr/pkg and
>to automatically make a new symlink at /usr/pkg/mk/sys.mk ?

None of these will DTRT on all platforms, generally on a bsd system
you want to use /usr/share/mk/bsd.* and install-mk can arrange to make
symlinks to them - but that's not suitable for a binary package.

>Also, can we have the package install the README too?

Sure.

>I will do this coding if you have any suggestions or advice about this
>first.

Feel free - you'll probably make less of a mess than I would ;-)

--sjg