On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote: > Hey, > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 02:25:11PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > > Sorry, I was a bit fast in reading that email. > > > > I managed to fuck up one of the [$mandatory] location, hence leading to that > > error message. > > No worries. It happens. > > > As to wiping the -t stuff, there are asymptote files that are NOT a part of > > the asymptote package, so your patch will require a bit of work. > > > > Likewise, texinfo is in the base system, so it can't be covered by -t. > > Hrm. So what you are saying is the set of files excluded before in > update_plist_hints.py is a superset of what the corresponding > `UPDATE_PLIST_ARGS += -t ...` stuff excludes. > > In light of that, I wonder if it would be better to remove the > `UPDATE_PLIST_ARGS += -t ...` stuff from texmf/Makefile, and have > update_plist_hints.py be the source of truth for what to filter out. > That way we'd have the logic in one place.
Not a good idea. -t will look in the ports tree, and thus be automatically up-to-date wrt the actual files in the port, as opposed to having to handcode them in your script. > I just tried the following: > - applied your most recent diff. > - comment out all the `UPDATE_PLIST_ARGS += -t ...` stuff in Makefile > - revert update_plist_hints.py to get the old exlusion logic back. > - `make update-plist` > > No new files creep in from (e.g.) ps2eps, psutils, asymptote, etc. That's a > good thing. > Is this because update-plist will not include files that are commented in the > hints file? Yep, it does the same thing your stuff does, that part of the code is fairly trivial. I still advise you to remove the actual stuff that's handled by -t, and just keep the texinfo and the extra texmf-dist asymptote stuff. You can also remove the exclusion of beforesubst/.port.orig. update-plist will whine about them but not include them.
