Re: When to use TMPPLIST instead of pkg-plist?
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 11:29:18AM -0800, Chris wrote: > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:02:23 +0100 Mateusz Piotrowski 0...@freebsd.org said > > > On 2/29/20 12:15 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:06:19PM +0100, Mateusz Piotrowski wrote: > > >> Do we have any (perhaps unwritten) policy for when to use TMPPLIST? And > > > when > > >> should a port maintainer stick to pkg-plist? > > > We do not. A port maintainer should stick to pkg-plist. > > > > That's what I thought. > > > > Is there a reason for it? Does it all boil down to that fact that > > pkg-plist is much more explicit and easier to debug/review? Or there is > > another reason? > TMPPLIST is an artifact of the QA process when making a port. It is used So, I stopped reading there because as this is wrong, all that comes afterwards was also ;-) TMPPLIST is the file where all of PLIST_FILES/DIR go after being processsed for %%FOO%% placeholders, it is where pkg-plist ends up, also after being processed for placeholders. It is also where stuff get added, like .info files from the INFO variable, @ldconfig calls from USE_LDCONFIG, rc file from USE_RC_SUBR, docs and examples from PORTDOCS and PORTEXAMPLES, and probably a few other things pile up in there. All in all, TMPPLIST is the temporary file where every file, directory, keyword... utimately every part of the framework, end up putting what needs to end up in the package. It is also used in the QA process, to tell the user if stuff is wrong wrt what is really installed, but it is not the other way round. -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: When to use TMPPLIST instead of pkg-plist?
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 14:30:14 -0500 Theron theron.tar...@gmail.com said On 2020-02-29 14:44, Bob Eager wrote: >make makeplist > > I believe > Indeed. A port may also provide its own definition of makeplist (ideally preserving the /you/have/to/check/... nag) to make maintenance easier, but any changes to resulting pkg-plist can still be easily seen by version control. Is providing such helpers encouraged / discouraged as a policy? It's a tool, in an aid for automation/convenience. A good maintainer will recognize that, and act accordingly. :) IOW it's not 100%, and it's output is subject to scrutiny by the maintainer. --Chris Theron ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: When to use TMPPLIST instead of pkg-plist?
On 2020-02-29 14:44, Bob Eager wrote: make makeplist I believe Indeed. A port may also provide its own definition of makeplist (ideally preserving the /you/have/to/check/... nag) to make maintenance easier, but any changes to resulting pkg-plist can still be easily seen by version control. Is providing such helpers encouraged / discouraged as a policy? Theron ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: When to use TMPPLIST instead of pkg-plist?
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 19:44:40 + Bob Eager r...@tavi.co.uk said On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:29:18 -0800 Chris wrote: > TMPPLIST is an artifact of the QA process when making a port. It is > used for comparison to what you, as a port maintainer claim is the > pkg-plist, and whats found that looks as the actual plist. When a > discrepancy occurs. You're warned, and instructed to make changes as > required. The thing is, because of so many variables, that TMPPLIST > isn't always correct. So to rely on it, as Mathieu stated, would be > *bad* policy. As memory serves; it's also the product of make > make-plist. make makeplist I believe You believe correctly. :) funny it doesn't show up in man ports. Thanks for the correction, Bob! --Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: When to use TMPPLIST instead of pkg-plist?
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:29:18 -0800 Chris wrote: > TMPPLIST is an artifact of the QA process when making a port. It is > used for comparison to what you, as a port maintainer claim is the > pkg-plist, and whats found that looks as the actual plist. When a > discrepancy occurs. You're warned, and instructed to make changes as > required. The thing is, because of so many variables, that TMPPLIST > isn't always correct. So to rely on it, as Mathieu stated, would be > *bad* policy. As memory serves; it's also the product of make > make-plist. make makeplist I believe ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: When to use TMPPLIST instead of pkg-plist?
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:02:23 +0100 Mateusz Piotrowski 0...@freebsd.org said On 2/29/20 12:15 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:06:19PM +0100, Mateusz Piotrowski wrote: >> Do we have any (perhaps unwritten) policy for when to use TMPPLIST? And > when >> should a port maintainer stick to pkg-plist? > We do not. A port maintainer should stick to pkg-plist. That's what I thought. Is there a reason for it? Does it all boil down to that fact that pkg-plist is much more explicit and easier to debug/review? Or there is another reason? TMPPLIST is an artifact of the QA process when making a port. It is used for comparison to what you, as a port maintainer claim is the pkg-plist, and whats found that looks as the actual plist. When a discrepancy occurs. You're warned, and instructed to make changes as required. The thing is, because of so many variables, that TMPPLIST isn't always correct. So to rely on it, as Mathieu stated, would be *bad* policy. As memory serves; it's also the product of make make-plist. Hope that helps in clarification. :) --Chris FreeBSD 14.0-FUTURE #0.000 cray256 Cheers, Mateusz ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: When to use TMPPLIST instead of pkg-plist?
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 3:02 AM Mateusz Piotrowski <0...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 2/29/20 12:15 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:06:19PM +0100, Mateusz Piotrowski wrote: > >> Do we have any (perhaps unwritten) policy for when to use TMPPLIST? And > >> when > >> should a port maintainer stick to pkg-plist? > > We do not. A port maintainer should stick to pkg-plist. > > That's what I thought. > > Is there a reason for it? Does it all boil down to that fact that > pkg-plist is much more explicit and easier to debug/review? Or there is > another reason? That, and maintainers knowing when a change impacts what gets installed. Explicit pkg-plist can be irritating, but that happens for precisely the same reason that it's beneficial. It's a pretty useful check. That said, TMPPLIST is there for a reason and there's no problem with leveraging it when the situation calls for it. The one true guideline on when it's appropriate is "to solve a problem that pkg-plist can't fix," and in general committer instinct has been quite good as to when it's needed. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: When to use TMPPLIST instead of pkg-plist?
On 2/29/20 12:15 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:06:19PM +0100, Mateusz Piotrowski wrote: Do we have any (perhaps unwritten) policy for when to use TMPPLIST? And when should a port maintainer stick to pkg-plist? We do not. A port maintainer should stick to pkg-plist. That's what I thought. Is there a reason for it? Does it all boil down to that fact that pkg-plist is much more explicit and easier to debug/review? Or there is another reason? Cheers, Mateusz ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: When to use TMPPLIST instead of pkg-plist?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 00:15:33 +0100 Mathieu Arnold wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:06:19PM +0100, Mateusz Piotrowski wrote: > > Hello ports@, > > > > recently I saw TMPPLIST being used for a relatively simple fonts > > port instead of pkg-plist to keep track of files to be installed by > > a port. I am quite surprised because I've always thought that this > > mechanism is reserved for special cases such as autoplist for > > Python packages. > > > > Do we have any (perhaps unwritten) policy for when to use TMPPLIST? > > And when should a port maintainer stick to pkg-plist? > > We do not. A port maintainer should stick to pkg-plist. > Presumably except for a very short pkg-plist, in which case, using PLIST_FILES is still OK. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEVgdI2KeVldPAhUYaKBdf2az8e6gFAl5Zq5AACgkQKBdf2az8 e6hTPQf/SfhhJxb0E3zvuquiKTFjDl7qxgx5ebMwLkxmP0jwtGG8v1d105A9UDUl /vx34fmaZLqmCtpgdTRQKPMYjP8713cCZPAiWJA0hcb0d4uhC6Tro2hj37Gj1tyO ItL1bLoCywvBBPcxHDVoCGSwbvfq4r5L5nY/HfgcRT97i9uYqFndLPLYND6N9sMm zM+ugd6Gf6C5JOumscRloWJIeCL/jT6lzit3mwrrL/vUIU8RxoZNxJcZxlJtcMR3 ljDVCaD8qOQ0TQu+hdk/HvtqlammQCUIZDCog+oL/HA43GSJKY+XhECGkLpYN8us 5zH/SZL9UvXi0ywgSwuASBoVFBnSKw== =m+5n -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: When to use TMPPLIST instead of pkg-plist?
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:06:19PM +0100, Mateusz Piotrowski wrote: > Hello ports@, > > recently I saw TMPPLIST being used for a relatively simple fonts port > instead of pkg-plist to keep track of files to be installed by a port. I am > quite surprised because I've always thought that this mechanism is reserved > for special cases such as autoplist for Python packages. > > Do we have any (perhaps unwritten) policy for when to use TMPPLIST? And when > should a port maintainer stick to pkg-plist? We do not. A port maintainer should stick to pkg-plist. -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: PGP signature
