[ On Friday, March 21, 2003 at 19:13:58 (+0100), Julio Merino wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: hardcoded etc/rc.d in PLISTs instead of RCD_SCRIPTS_EXAMPLEDIR
>
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:57:39 -0500 (EST)
> "Greg A. Woods" <woods@weird.com> wrote:
> 
> > [ On Friday, March 21, 2003 at 08:14:34 (-0800), Jeremy C. Reed wrote: ]
> > > Subject: Re: hardcoded etc/rc.d in PLISTs instead of RCD_SCRIPTS_EXAMPLEDIR
> > >
> > > Or don't have them in the PLIST at all and just have the PKG_RCD_SCRIPTS
> > > mechanism register them itself.
> 
> I don't agree with this.  It is better if PLIST's contain all files
> installed under localbase,

Obviously the files mentioned in RCD_SCRIPTS will still be registered
for "pkg_info -L" (and of course in the master pkg_admin database for
conflict detection and avoidance).

> so you can grep them...

That's totally bogus.  You should not ever be searching for things by
looking in the PLIST files, or at least not ever relying on the results
of such a search to be authoritative -- the PLIST files are definitely
not fully authoritative (and never have been and likely never will be)
and they have way too many variables for reliable searching as well.
PLIST files are only inputs to the final list of what's registered in a
package, as the many possible transformations they can go through shows.

> and print-plist just
> works;

What is "print-plist"?  I have no command with that name and there's no
such target in any pgksrc/mk/* file.  (and it could only ever possibly
make sense after "make extract plist" anyway because it would have to
display the content of work/.PLIST to be useful, in which case all the
RCD_SCRIPTS will be shown in their final install location anyway since
the act of making the "plist" target does in fact trigger the code
suggested in my patch)

> no need to remove those files from the plist when creating or
> updating a package...

I'm not sure what you mean by that either....  (My point is that you
should not ever even mention them in any PLIST files in the first
place!)

Note that RCD_SCRIPTS are often not in the source distribution, nor
installed by the source build -- they are often in the files subdir.

However their mere mention in RCD_SCRIPTS causes them to be installed
and thus it should also cause them to be registered in /var/db/pkg.

Besides I think the ease of maintenance argument would win over all your
concerns even if they were valid.  Duplication of information like this
in places where it does not need to be duplicated is a "Bad Thing(TM)".

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;            <g.a.woods@ieee.org>;           <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>