On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 08:37:45PM +0200, John Marino wrote: > On 4/10/2014 20:28, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:32:31PM +0200, Dominic Fandrey wrote: > >> > >> On 10/04/2014 18:53, Helmut Schneider wrote: > >>> I created a new port, Typo3-LTS. The tgz contains > >>> > >>> - Makefile > >>> - distinfo > >>> - pkg-plist > >>> - pkg-descr > >>> - a diff from www/typo3 > >>> > >>> The file has ~150kB so I assume it's to big for a PR. > >> > >> I assume the bulk of that is the pkg-plist. The largest pkg-plist > >> in the ports tree is 4M. In my opinion huge plists should be dynamically > >> generated, but in your case I'd just I'd just temp-host the file > >> somewhere and file a PR with a link and a checksum. > >> > > Autoplist are harmful! and should be avoided as much as possible, I know > > python > > and ruby has it but I m really not happy about that > > > > autoplist is dangerous because we have no way to control that what is > > package is > > what the maintainer expect to be packaged! therefore we often end up with > > unoticed problems > > Yes, but 6,000 - 20,000 line plists are unwieldy to say the least. > And the danger can be mitigated by the maintainer by reviewing the > internal temporary package list, ideally on multiple platforms. Also > some plists are really hard to make manually if there are many options > or if the plist morphs depending on the combination of options. > > yes, a safety net is removed with a generated plist but it has it's > place. The maintainer just has to be vigilant. >
Can't we teach the ports system to handle pkg-plist.gz?
pgpVQZOwTagy4.pgp
Description: PGP signature