HEADS UP: pkg-plist strict enforcement starting

Kris Kennaway kris at obsecurity.org
Thu Jan 13 10:05:06 PST 2005

On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:56:19AM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > How do you treat an upgrade? Both Munin ports need to conserve state.
> > > And they can only do that by leaving symlinks and files behind.
> > 
> > There's got to be some way to handle the somewhat different
> > configuration needs of this port in a way compatible with the
> > requirements imposed on the rest of the ports collection, but I don't
> > have time to think about it right now.
> My suggestion is that we mark this port IGNORE for now to keep it
> out of our error reports, to allow us to concentrate on fixing as
> many of the other problematic ports as possible.
> About a month ago I went through all the IGNOREd ports and there is
> some further work to be done on some of them but IMHO at a lower
> priority than BROKEN/DEPRECATED issues.  Moving (almost) all of the
> non-plist-compliant ports into the BROKEN/DEPRECATED space is a big
> change; I doubt we can catch every edge condition as we do so.

I'm going to be careful about not allowing the "questionable" packages
to fall foul of the pkg-plist checking, until we decide one way or the
other whether they should be considered "broken".

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20050113/e9c1c7b8/attachment.bin

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list