Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/doc/guide/files
To: Alistair Crooks <agc@pkgsrc.org>
From: Roland Illig <rillig@NetBSD.org>
List: pkgsrc-changes
Date: 12/04/2005 10:22:46
Alistair Crooks wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:28:21PM +0100, Roland Illig wrote:
>
>>Alistair Crooks wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:52:31PM +0000, Roland Illig wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Module Name: pkgsrc
>>>>Committed By: rillig
>>>>Date: Fri Dec 2 13:52:31 UTC 2005
>>>>
>>>>Modified Files:
>>>> pkgsrc/doc/guide/files: components.xml
>>>>
>>>>Log Message:
>>>>Don't encourage users to abuse the patch framework for installing
>>>>pkgsrc-specific files into ${WRKSRC}. I've lately seen too many patches
>>>>against /dev/null that contain RCS Ids.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't understand what you're trying to achieve with this artificial
>>>restriction. I would much rather have all pkgsrc changes to a package
>>>be done using the patch stage and framework. It is much easier, for a
>>>number of reasons.
>>
>>- Files in the files/ directory can be edited more easily.
>
>
> That is neither here nor there. If you want to make a change to a
> file in the package, it should be done as part of the ${WRKSRC}
> expansion of the source. That gives the whole context, not just a
> single part of it.
I worry about misunderstanding you completely. Did you just say that,
for example, www/apache/files/apache.sh should rather be
www/apache/patches/patch-ap?
>>- Patches against /dev/null are larger than plain files.
>
> I do not think that pkgsrc strategy should be decided on the tiny
> amount of extra overhead used by patch(1).
I am not concerned on overhead. The thing that I'm interested in is
mostly usability and cleanliness.
> In addition, files in the files/ subdirectory need to be copied to
> ${WRKSRC} in a separate target in the Makefile. This adds to the
> Makefile's contents.
Instead of the various ad-hoc tries to copy the files from ${FILESDIR}
to ${WRKSRC} or ${WRKDIR}, we could have some variables that do that
task consistently for all packages. But that's another issue.
>>- RCS Ids in patch files always have patch-?? as filename, not the name
>>under which the file is installed in ${WRKSRC}.
>
> + Expanded RCS Ids in ${WRKSRC} are not meaningful
Not even if they get installed later into ${PREFIX}? See the apache.sh
example above.
Roland