On 07/20/2011 07:31 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
On 7/20/11 4:40 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
I have a couple of questions.
1) Why does portlint complain if a port is not DATADIR compliant?
The warning is very conditional. It tries to provide information so one
can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to be
DATADIR-safe.
What was the rationale behind making ports DATADIR compliant, so that if
one types "make install DATADIR=/somewhere_else" then what would be
stored in /usr/local/share/port_name will now be in /somewhere_else.
If there are one hundred ports depending upon port x/y, and those ports
use the x/y DATADIR, then each of those hundred ports will have to include:
DATADIR!= cd ${.CURDIR}/../../x/y&& make -V DATADIR
This doesn't make sense for all ports. That's why the warning is soft.
This will really slow down makeindex.
It seems to me that you cannot use:
DATADIR= `cd ${.CURDIR}/../../x/y&& make -V DATADIR`
because this won't properly set PLIST_SUB.
2) Why does portlint NOT complain if a port is not NOPORTEXAMPLES
compliant?
No one asked for it.
This would seem a natural extension of portlint complaining if a port is
not NOPORTDOCS compliant.
I agree. Patches welcome.
Thanks. Those are both good answers.
I'll look into a patch for NOPORTEXAMPLES, but the code is definitely
quite involved, and I can now see it will be a little bit more work than
"monkey see - monkey do."
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
