With much guidance, I'm updating x11/tint to stable 0.12.2. The
exercise has generated 3 questions.
The first question is the use of /etc/xdg. Referencing a Debian testing
installation, default configuration files are starting to show up in
/etc/xdg. Debian Examples: /etc/xdg/tint2/tint2rc and
/etc/xdg/openbox/rc.xml. My understanding is that it also provides
autostarting by placing applications *.desktop file in
/etc/xdg/autostart/.
The current tint port maintainer previously used post-install scripts to
create the /usr/local/share/examples/tint2/ directory. The next line,
@mv .... , copies rather than moves code from /etc/xdg to the newly
created ${PREFIX}/share/examples/tint2/ directory.
The new tint2 fake installs etc/xdg/tint2/tint2rc but
gives the following error with "make plist"
> make-plist: Bogus element outside of every prefix: /etc/xdg
> make-plist: Bogus element outside of every prefix: /etc/xdg/tint2
> make-plist: Bogus element outside of every prefix: /etc/xdg/tint2
The default configuration needs to be installed and my sense is that
this issue will be occurring with other ports in the future. Any suggestions
as to what to do presently appreciated.
The other questions are easier. Upstream now refers to their code base
as tint2 and it is packaged as such in mainstream linux distributions.
If the port update is acceptable, would it be appropriate to remove
x11/tint and provide a newly named x11/tint2 port?
Last question. Tint2 comes with a python based configuation wizard. It
runs acceptably but writes unused, configuration examples in
~/.config/tint2/. These examples will already be in
/usr/local/share/examples/tint2/. My bias is that OpenBSD is about
correct, clean code and this is just plain messy. Is this enough reason
to pass a port configuration option not to build the wizard?
Thanks
--
J. Scott Heppler
