Luigi Rizzo píše v pá 02. 02. 2007 v 11:35 -0800: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:37:55PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > Luigi Rizzo píse v pá 02. 02. 2007 v 10:32 -0800: > > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:19:05PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > ... > > > > 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 > > As i wrote, the developer of the code being ported (which happens > to be me) has stated a few reasons why at this time he does not > want a package made of this port. This is entirely his right, and > we have the NO_PACKAGE keyword exactly for this reasons.
I think the reason stated in the Makefile on NO_PACKAGE line is bogus.
Surely you can build it, and move the binaries to another machine
running same OSVERSION ...?
> > Now there are methods to have the pkg-plist autogenerated. How hard it
> > would be?
>
> As for auto-building the pkg-plist, it is not totally automated,
> at least judging from Sec. 7.5 of the handbook, and now i really
> don't have more time to spend on this exercise. When the code being
Considered asking someone to maintain the port for you? So you could
fully devote to the coding.
--
Pav Lucistnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
signature.asc
Description: Toto je digitálně podepsaná část zprávy
