>> Well I've never used Portage, but I have looked at their portfiles
>(emerge
>> or whatever they are called) sometimes in the past to check out how
>their
>> port authors did a given port, or to see if they had useful patches.
> All
>> I can say is that I remember they have 'dodoc' and 'dobin' (seems like
>> they could've used better names), which I think installs the given files
>> into the standard doc and bin locations. That's really all I know about
>> it.
>
>I don't know that much about ebuilds in portage in detail although I
>already used it. If dobin and dodoc simply copy the file over without
>additional logic, these would just be aliases for xinstall in our case:
>
>dobin: xinstall -m 755 foo ${destroot}${prefix}/bin
>dodoc: xinstall -m 644 foo ${destroot}${prefix}/share/doc/${name}
>
>We could create such aliases if there is really a need for it. Most
>ports simply use the 'make install' of the software anyway and we
>already have a much more general approach with xinstall.
>
>But if we are going to do it, I don't like these names do* very much, I
>think xinstall-bin/xinstall-doc would be better. Do you think we need
>something like this at all?
>
>Rainer
Hi Ranier,
I think that jberry had said some macros were desireable at one point, and
I had thoudht the portage 'dodoc' & 'dobin' were good examples of this,
except for the naming. But I'm not sure of that. I suppose we should see
what others think. Or maybe if we are going to do macros, we should think
about what would be the most important ones.
Mark
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
