Question about pkg-plist
Hello everybody I'm currently working on a tiny little port. It consists of a single binary and an accompanying LICENSE file. When I ran genplist, it generated this in pkg-plist.new: bin/mybinary %%PORTDOCSDOCSDIR%%/LICENSE %%portdoc...@dirrm %%DOCSDIR%% Simple enough. However, I also know that the LICENSE file will also be installed if NOPORTDOCS has been defined. I thought maybe I should write something like this. bin/mybinary %%DOCSDIR%%/LICENSE @dirrm %%DOCSDIR%% Otherwise I might forget to remove LICENSE if the port was built with NOPORTDOCS defined. Am I correct about this? Or is the build system smart enough to work with the auto generated plist? BTW what the simplest way to do genplist create with NOPORTDOCS defined? Do I have to put it in the environment before running genplist create? regards, dave ___ 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
Re: Question about pkg-plist
Thanks! I'll go for the second variant then since the LICENSE is installed regardless of NOPORTDOCS. On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 22:04 +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:27:53 +0100 david fries d...@gmx.ch wrote: Hello everybody I'm currently working on a tiny little port. It consists of a single binary and an accompanying LICENSE file. When I ran genplist, it generated this in pkg-plist.new: bin/mybinary %%PORTDOCSDOCSDIR%%/LICENSE %%portdoc...@dirrm %%DOCSDIR%% Simple enough. However, I also know that the LICENSE file will also be installed if NOPORTDOCS has been defined. I thought maybe I should write something like this. bin/mybinary %%DOCSDIR%%/LICENSE @dirrm %%DOCSDIR%% If you install the LICENCE file depending on NOPORTDOCS, the you should keep the first variant; if not, the second. First is what you should 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
Newbie question about additional documentation
Hi everybody I started working on my first port (a Haskell cabal package) over the last weekend. I read the porter's handbook and then began by looking at similar ports that already existed in the ports collection (e.g. archivers/hs-zlib) to get a basic idea of what the port should look like. I noticed that the only documentation listed in pkg-plist of these ports is the LICENSE file. So pkg-plist looks something like this: ... other files.. %%PORTDOCSDOCSDIR%%/LICENSE %%portdoc...@dirrm %%DOCSDIR%% ... @exec/@unexec... However, when you install the port (assuming NOPORTDOCS is not set), a HTML documentation will also be generated by the Haskell compiler and put into %%PORTDOCSDOCSDIR%%/html/*. So my question is, is it ok to omit these html files in the pkg-plist? I thought, you should list those too... regards, David -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 ___ 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
