ports/56517: [CHANGE-REQUEST] ports/flexbackup 1.2.0

[Edwin Groothuis]

Synopsis: [CHANGE-REQUEST] ports/flexbackup 1.2.0

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: edwin
State-Changed-When: Tue Oct 7 18:51:49 PDT 2003
State-Changed-Why: 
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 18:29:17 -0700
From: John Reynolds <johnjen at reynoldsnet.org>
To: edwin at freebsd.org

No, I do NOT approve the change. I have "argued" with martin at tradex.sk over
this particular thing before, and finally we came to an agreement.
   
The port does NOT violate LOCALBASE. There is nothing at all installed outside  
LOCALBASE. The original author of the software coded it so that its config file 
is read from /etc. This behavior needs to remain in tact--in the case where
people share /usr/local across several machines, it does not make sense to have
a configuration file that is "shared."
   
A "sample" of the configuration file is installed under LOCALBASE and
pkg-message displays instructions for the user to copy this to /etc/ and edit
to taste.
   
The only other thing that Martin and I agreed on was the pkg-message.in
mechanism (he said that installing it from a package didn't print the proper
PREFIX). I told him that I would do that, but I just haven't gotten around to   
submitting a patch--at the time we were discussing the changes, the ports tree  
was being frozen for 4.9 (is it still frozen or what?). Simultaneously, I got
"busy" with Real Life(tm).
   
If the ports tree is unfrozen, I can whip up the changes that martin and I
agreed upon (he wants a .ifdef "knob" for the local configuration override) and 
hopefully send in a PR within the next several days modulo my busy-ness. That   
PR would invalidate this ports/56517.
   
When I send-pr the new one, I will contact you or the committer who does that   
PR and tell them to close ports/56517 out as "no longer valid."
 
Thanks,
 
-Jr

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=56517