cvs commit: ports/devel/linux-kmod-compat Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist

[Pav Lucistnik]

Luigi Rizzo píše v pá 02. 02. 2007 v 11:35 -0800:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:37:55PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Luigi Rizzo píse v pá 02. 02. 2007 v 10:32 -0800:
> > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:19:05PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> ...
> > > > You can't do this. Now, the packages will contain nothing (read: be
> > > > useless).
> > > 
> > > at least for the time being it makes no sense to have a
> > > package built for this port, for a variety of reasons
> > > (code stability, licensing, etc). So i have put in pkg-descr
> > > only enough info to cleanup on deinstall.
> > > I am not sure it will _ever_ make sense to have this as a package,
> > > when the code becomes stable enough it should should probably
> > > become part of the kernel.
> > > 
> > > did i misunderstand something ?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > First, you break the Good Practices of port making.
> > 
> > Second, you deny your users a part of the general functionality of the
> > ports collection - ie. packages. Users will be unable to install binary
> 
> As i wrote, the developer of the code being ported (which happens
> to be me) has stated a few reasons why at this time he does not 
> want a package made of this port. This is entirely his right, and
> we have the NO_PACKAGE keyword exactly for this reasons.

I think the reason stated in the Makefile on NO_PACKAGE line is bogus.
Surely you can build it, and move the binaries to another machine
running same OSVERSION ...?

> > Now there are methods to have the pkg-plist autogenerated. How hard it
> > would be?
> 
> As for auto-building the pkg-plist, it is not totally automated,
> at least judging from Sec. 7.5 of the handbook, and now i really
> don't have more time to spend on this exercise.  When the code being

Considered asking someone to maintain the port for you? So you could
fully devote to the coding.

-- 
Pav Lucistnik <pav at oook.cz>
              <pav at FreeBSD.org>

42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: Toto je =?UTF-8?Q?digit=C3=A1ln=C4=9B?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8D=C3=A1st?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?=
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/attachments/20070202/72f881b4/attachment.pgp