ports/68769: [PATCH] devel/maven: update to 1.0.r4 and MASTER_SITE_APACHE

[Oliver Eikemeier]

Herve Quiroz wrote:

>  On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:19:49PM +0200, Volker Stolz wrote:
>> Am 09. Jul 2004 um 13:17 CEST schrieb Herve Quiroz:
>>> - Dynamic pkg-plist (hence I removed the maintainer target)
>>
>> Hm, I'm strongly against dynamic plist -- partly because they're
>> always right when something goes wrong and partly I like to look
>> at them occassionally. Is this *really* necessary?
>
>  Not necessary at all. It's just that some other commiter (eik) just
>  asked me for a dynamic plist for one of my ports.

I asked you to `sort the pkg-plist or generate a dynamic one'. The 
dynamic generation came from the fact that you already did this in a 
`x-generate-plist:' target, plus that everything in the packing list 
were data files in one directory that was completely owned by the port.

IMHO the decision whether to use a (partly) dynamic packing list should 
be made based on:

- is the installation process dynamic too, so that I'm sure exactly 
those files are added to the plist that are installed (and no other ones 
accidentally in the target directory)

- does it ease upgrades for potentially fast changing packing lists, or 
are there pitfalls in the process

- is the dynamic part of the plist only for auxiliary data and does not 
hide files I potentially need to depend upon or conflict with (e.g. the 
main executable)

some motives for using a dynamic list here could be the sheer size of 
the packing list and entries that have '-20030211.142932' in the name. 
Reasons against it might be that it is not clearly defined how 
PLIST_FILES and a (dynamic) packing list play together, and that it is 
not clear that the plist generation (with two find commands) does 
exactly the same like the install process (with cpio).

In PORTDOCS I reasoned the many ports install changing documentation 
which might be generated during build time (especially the java ones) 
that is hard to maintain (we had a lot of packing list errors), 
installed to directories where it is unlikely that another port (or a 
user) will add his own files. Besides, I'm making sure that this list is 
correct by generating it from the  *installed* files.

I'm currently working on PR 66032, which should make the process of 
packing list generation more clearly defined, and should assure 
correctness. In the meantime there is no `good practice', or as the perl 
people say: TIMTOWTDI. The considerations above may help to make your 
own decision.

-Oliver

P.S.: Some style nits:

The saved `>>${PLIST}' is not worth the subshell spawned by `( ... )' 
and generally the stuff is less clear. Try how the code reads with two 
FINDs (easier to understand IMHO). You don't need to pipe through SORT, 
find -s and find -d should suffice (especially since find -s -d is what 
you want, not sort -r). Also, cpio might copy stuff not matched by the 
plist generation. Also the chmod/chown stuff looks tricky to me.