Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/linux-kmod-compat Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist
Quoting Luigi Rizzo <rizzo_at_icir.org> (Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:46:20 -0800):
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 09:21:29PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Luigi Rizzo píse v pá 02. 02. 2007 v 12:14 -0800:
> > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 08:55:29PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > > > Luigi Rizzo píse v pá 02. 02. 2007 v 11:35 -0800:
> > > ...
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > You are right. Fixed now.
> > >
> > > > Surely you can build it, and move the binaries to another machine
> > > > running same OSVERSION ...?
> > >
> > > Pardon me but have you read what this thing does ?
> > > This is the do-build target from the Makefile:
> > >
> > > do-build: # nothing to build here, just a chance to update the source.
> > >
> > > there are no binaries built, just a tarball extracted and copied to the
> > > destination directory, with no extra files.
> > > If you make a package you just create a reformatted tarball with
> > > the same content of the original distribution. Makes no sense.
> > > you can just as easily download the original.
> > Of course it makes sense. It allows user to install it using the
> > standard package mechanism. No deal it's just repackaging of vendor
> > tarball. We have several ports taht install documentation in this
> > manner.
> maybe they are stable packages. This one is changing frequently now.
> Anyways, it's my code, it's my choice. You can delete this and
> another thousand ports if you don't like the idea of NO_PACKAGE
The main complaint is about the missing plist. NO_PACKAGE is a ports
build cluster feature (no transfer of the package to the ftp site), an
user is still able to build a package. Without a plist you are not able
to remove the installed stuff with the package management tools (and
also not with "make deinstall" in the ports directory).
> > > Now if you want to make packages for the children ports (gspca.ko,
> > > qc511.ko and so on) that's another story and for those the pkg-plist
> > > is fully compliant, i am just unclear on the licensing issues
> > > (probably all it takes is add in the package a reference to the sources)
> > > and again, i think the modules are too experimental now to be
> > > distributed as binaries.
> > Note that by not having the package for linux-kmod-compat, you also
> > prevent packages for the actual drivers from happening.
> why is that ? the dependency is BUILD_DEPEND, so as long as the build
> machine has it, the drivers can be packaged by individually
> removing the NO_PACKAGE line when it is safe to do so.
The ports build cluster typically installs dependencies as a package. I
don't know if this is a problem in this case or not.
But what you have is a failed build of a dependency, because there will
be leftover files on deinstall of the linux-kmod-compat port (empty
plist). And AFAIK ports which depend upon a failed port will not be
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I did, in the commit log:
> > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/devel/linux-kmod-compat/Makefile
> > I mean, _before_ spending all the time and committing half finished
> > work.
> i was trying to save others a bit of work and learn something.
> As for "half finished", this seems a bit of an overstatement.
> We are just discussing on the content of a single file, pkg-plist
> (or a few lines in the Makefile to build it at pre-install time),
> and that was a deliberate choice of mine to have it this way now
> and reconsider the choice at due time.
The plist is a major part of a port. No ports committer will commit a
port when he knows that the plist is broken.
Poster Ohne Richtigen Namen
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild _at_ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Received on Sat Feb 03 2007 - 13:49:41 UTC