Xournal: Please, help me with my first port

[Jan Henrik Sylvester]

On 01/23/2011 11:42, Chris Rees wrote:
> Take a look at the new patch so far; I'm still working on Busybox at
> the moment, so I'm afraid I can't step too much more through it, but

Just a question about what you did so far: Why the 
"CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--prefix=${PREFIX}"? I have tested with a different 
PREFIX before and it was successful -- that is what the second part of 
the REINPLACE accomplished. What does your line improve?

Or is it a first step, if I wanted to make the port DATADIR-safe?

> it should give you a little more to work on. I've tidied the REINPLACE
> lines for you too.

Thanks, that is better to read.

> http://www.bayofrum.net/~chris/patches/xournal.diff
>
> DATADIR-safe appears unnecessary according to the conversation
> http://www.mailinglistarchive.com/freebsd-ports@freebsd.org/msg08234.html
> , so I think that this port should be fine as is right now. Try
> submitting it, it should be fine.

That is what I thought and since I would have to patch the source (at 
least main.c) and the Mafile(s), I did not consider it to be worse it, 
since I do not believe anyone will ever use a different DATADIR for this 
port.

That leads to my second question: Is your proposal to replace the 
"share/xournal" in pkg-plist by "%%DATADIR%%" correct although the port 
is not DATADIR-safe? Currently, if DATADIR is set the port ends up to be 
installed with wrong +CONTENTS, since the installation ignores DATADIR 
being set, but +CONTENTS uses it.

I believe that it is correct what portlint says: "If and only if your 
port is DATADIR-safe (that is, a user can override DATADIR when building 
this port and the port will still work correctly) consider using DATADIR 
macro; if you are unsure if this port is DATADIR-safe, then ignore this 
warning". Thus, there should not be DATADIR in my pkg-plist as long as 
the port is not DATADIR-safe.

Cheers,
Jan Henrik