pkgsrc-Changes archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/math/py-Scientific-doc



AUTO_MKDIRS is also harmful for updates for the same reason, I switched
myself to INSTALLATION_DIRS.

I always treated PLIST as an integrity check of a generated package, not
the other way around like PLIST defining directory tree for a package in
a pre-install stage. If the data would be duplicated, we could just stop
using PLIST at all and packaging everything without this stage.

I don't see the point of 1% - we get the same result with the said
INSTALLATION_DIRS if the installation tree has changed - we can alter it
in Makefile off hand otherwise we need to manually rework PLIST.

On 01.08.2016 00:24, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> The typical user/consumer of a pkgsrc Makefile is not the package
> creator. So optimising for the 1% at the expense of every other user is
> inappropriate and arcane.
> 
> Duplicating info between package Makefile and PLIST is error prone,
> liable to maintenance issues, unnecessary and unwanted. It pollutes the
> pkgsrc Makefile for no good reason (the info is already in the PLIST. by
> definition), and does not belong there. 
> 
> In the same way that we have moved package installation commands from
> the PLIST to install and uninstall scripts (and it would be good to
> complete this), we need to focus on doing one thing well, in the
> appropriate place.
> 
> Regards,
> Alistair 
> 
> On Friday, July 29, 2016, Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost
> <mailto:n54%gmx.com@localhost>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On 29.07.2016 22:43, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>     > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:38:39PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>     >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 09:54:45AM -0700, Alistair Crooks wrote:
>     >>> Actually, I disagree - we need to talk about this, as the
>     practice of
>     >>> copying information from the PLIST into the Makefile, having to
>     >>> maintain information in 2 places, and in general muddying the waters
>     >>> between a list of files in the package (the PLIST) and the
>     >>> instructions for building the whole package -- these 2 need to
>     be kept
>     >>> distinct, both logically and physically.
>     >>>
>     >>> If AUTO_MKDIRS isn't working properly, let's fix it, and then
>     make it
>     >>> the default, please
>     >>
>     >> Consider the typical example of
>     >>     ${BSD_INSTALL_PROG} foo ${DESTDIR}${PREFIX}/bin
>     >>
>     >> This will complete successfully, whether bin is a directory or not.
>     >> With AUTO_MKDIRS, removing the PLIST, touching it, running
>     stage-install
>     >> and then print-PLIST > PLIST will have a different result compared to
>     >> just stage-install. As such, I consider the part about creating bin a
>     >> very important and explicit part of the build instructions.
>     >
>     > To put this differently: I strongly prefer a dumb PLIST that can
>     always
>     > be regenerated over a semi-smart PLIST that must exist to build the
>     > package. The PLIST is already redundant, so the argument for removing
>     > essential build instructions from the Makefile doesn't cut for me.
>     >
>     > Joerg
>     >
> 
>     From a creator of packages point of view AUTO_MKDIRS is harmful. For
>     some reason it's advertised by pkglint.
> 
>     To make package functional I need to create dummy PLIST to bootstrap
>     dirs and later on to generate proper PLIST. I think it should be dropped
>     in favour of INSTALLATION_DIRS.
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index