On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 22:12:35 +, Eitan Adler wrote:
The .pkgconf suffix tells pkgng that this file is a sample. But it
could
also be done via an attribute.
I would much prefer an attribute instead of a suffix for the reasons
previously stated.
I hope this is not bikeshedding the issue.
The reason I choose pkgconf (we can change that name) is that it concerns
only configuration files that the maintainers DO want.
I want to make sure that maintainers are looking at the samples the proprose
to provide a usable sample, not the default one from the distfile (the
default one can
On 14 July 2011 20:02, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote:
The reason I choose pkgconf (we can change that name) is that it concerns
only configuration files that the maintainers DO want.
I want to make sure that maintainers are looking at the samples the proprose
to provide a usable
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:02:25 -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
The reason I choose pkgconf (we can change that name) is that it
concerns
only configuration files that the maintainers DO want.
I want to make sure that maintainers are looking at the samples the
proprose
to provide a usable sample, not
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:15:41 +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
On 14 July 2011 20:02, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote:
The reason I choose pkgconf (we can change that name) is that it
concerns
only configuration files that the maintainers DO want.
I want to make sure that maintainers are
What bapt is talking about is that he doesn't want people to blindly
install the .sample files from the distfile, and actually _look_
through them.
This is exactly what I expect the port to be doing. I do _not_ want
the port maintainers to be touching the upstream sample conf files
unless (a)
On 14 July 2011 22:29, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote:
What bapt is talking about is that he doesn't want people to blindly
install the .sample files from the distfile, and actually _look_
through them.
This is exactly what I expect the port to be doing. I do _not_ want
the port
Yes, right now, pkgng uses the .pkgconf suffix to know that it is a
configuration file. But now, we have a new format for the package
manifest so _maybe_ (it has to be discussed with bapt) we can add an
attribute to a file entry saying I am a sample of a conf file. The
hardest part for that
On 07/03/2011 16:30, Eitan Adler wrote:
(I hope this isn't bikeshedding)
I would much prefer this method over choosing an unusual suffix. There
is much documentation on the internet that assumes certain things
about packaging. Many times INSTALL files will tell the user to
looking for a
The .pkgconf suffix tells pkgng that this file is a sample. But it could
also be done via an attribute.
I would much prefer an attribute instead of a suffix for the reasons
previously stated.
I hope this is not bikeshedding the issue.
Doing stuff with @exec or scripts should be for special
On 30 Jun 2011 12:18, Julien Laffaye jlaff...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 06/30/2011 08:22, Chris Rees wrote:
I like the rest, but I do not like the name of .pkgconf. I think, the
'pkgconf' is best define for something related with FreeBSD rather
than third-party product. The .sample or
On 30 June 2011 01:35, Jeremy Messenger mezz.free...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Dear all,
I've rewritten the CONF_FILES handling after talking to bapt@, and
I've done away with the
colon-separated tuples -- they're overcomplicated.
On 06/30/2011 08:22, Chris Rees wrote:
I like the rest, but I do not like the name of .pkgconf. I think, the
'pkgconf' is best define for something related with FreeBSD rather
than third-party product. The .sample or .default is best name and
less confuse for the users, because the word said
Dear all,
I've rewritten the CONF_FILES handling after talking to bapt@, and
I've done away with the
colon-separated tuples -- they're overcomplicated.
The result is something like MAN and PORTDOCS (indeed most of the code
is stolen from PORTDOCS).
This means that shell globs, filenames and
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Dear all,
I've rewritten the CONF_FILES handling after talking to bapt@, and
I've done away with the
colon-separated tuples -- they're overcomplicated.
The result is something like MAN and PORTDOCS (indeed most of the code
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Dear all,
I've rewritten the CONF_FILES handling after talking to bapt@, and
I've done away with the
colon-separated tuples -- they're overcomplicated.
The result is something like MAN and PORTDOCS (indeed most of the code
16 matches
Mail list logo
