HEADS UP: New gconf key policy

Joe Marcus Clarke marcus at marcuscom.com
Thu Jun 24 08:00:38 PDT 2004

On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 03:59, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> V čt, 24. 06. 2004 v 03:20, Joe Marcus Clarke píše:
> > Please take a look at the latest update to archivers/fileroller, and let
> > me know what you think.  This is the new gconf policy I think we need to
> > adopt if we're to survive the upcoming gconf changes in GNOME 2.8 (it's
> > similar to the way we handle OMF files now).  This will also make gconf
> > handling much more robust with respect to plists.
> > 
> > The one downside I see with this is that we will miss Makefile bugs that
> > prevent proper schema installation.  One way around that is to add a
> > pkg-install script to each port that installs gconf schemas, and do
> > gconf registration there.  This may be more work than it's worth,
> > though.
> > 
> > What are people's thoughts on this?  Thanks.
> Packing lists on diet! I prefer @exec/@unexec in pkg-plist over
> pkg-install script, that would be bloat. Maybe add a check to portlint
> to spit a correct @exec and @unexec lines if they're missing, so porters
> don't have to refer to docs for the exact syntax of invocation? Just
> like .omf files have it.

That was my plan.  I already have the script in place to add these lines
automatically (gconf.pl).


PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-gnome/attachments/20040624/3be64210/attachment.bin

More information about the freebsd-gnome mailing list