Luigi Rizzo píše v pá 02. 02. 2007 v 10:32 -0800: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:19:05PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > Luigi Rizzo píse v pá 02. 02. 2007 v 18:08 +0000: > > > > > + portlint also complains because the url in pkg-descr does not contain > > > 'www'. Can't help it, the url really does not contain 'www'. > > > > It actually complains the URL is not prefixed with WWW: moniker. > > > > > + For the same reason, at this time i prefer not to list all individual > > > files in pkg-plist. When the thing has settled a bit more, I will > > > reconsider > > > this choice. > > > > You can't do this. Now, the packages will contain nothing (read: be > > useless). > > at least for the time being it makes no sense to have a > package built for this port, for a variety of reasons > (code stability, licensing, etc). So i have put in pkg-descr > only enough info to cleanup on deinstall. > I am not sure it will _ever_ make sense to have this as a package, > when the code becomes stable enough it should should probably > become part of the kernel. > > did i misunderstand something ?
Yes.
First, you break the Good Practices of port making.
Second, you deny your users a part of the general functionality of the
ports collection - ie. packages. Users will be unable to install binary
package from the network, users will be unable to build a package on
their machines and mass-install it on their other computers. You have no
rollback on upgrade, if it should fail.
Plus, you're setting a false impression that other people can get away
with this in their ports.
Now there are methods to have the pkg-plist autogenerated. How hard it
would be?
--
Pav Lucistnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Two sausages are in a frying pan. One says, "Geez, it's hot in here isn't it?"
And the other one says, "Aaaaaah! A talking sausage!"
signature.asc
Description: Toto je digitálně podepsaná část zprávy
