Why does everybody switch to dynamic plists?

Alexander Leidinger Alexander at Leidinger.net
Fri Jan 21 11:51:17 PST 2005


can someone please tell me why people enjoy to use dynamic plists, even
when there was a static plist already?

With a dynamic plist:
 - We lose the ability to search for files which aren't installed.
   (useful for users)
 - We lose the ability to determine if a particular port contains what
   we search.
   (useful for users)
 - We lose the ability to check just with grep if two ports install
   conflicting files (in case we get a report of a conflict it's very
   nice to not need to install a port to verify the conflict).
   (useful for users and port developers)
 - We lose the ability to use portlint to check the plist (if the
   maintainer checks the generated one he just can use a static plist).
   BTW.: Does portlint know how to check the embedded plist (the
   Makefile variables)?
   (useful for port developers)
 - We lose the ability to maybe answer support requests without the need
   to install the software.
   (useful for "the frontliners")
 + We don't need to take care if the plist changes.
   (useful for port developers)

I count 1 positive and 5 negative aspects.

If the developer of a port puts the dynamic plist generation into a
Makefile target instead of inlining it into the build/install process,
he doesn't needs to put alot more effort into the development process
(just one "make <generate-the-plist-target>") and gets the benefits of
static plists too.

Maybe I've overlooked something, but so far I haven't seen a dynamic
plist which needs to be a dynamic one. So I think at least 99% of our
dynamic plists don't need to be dynamic.


         The computer revolution is over. The computers won.

http://www.Leidinger.net                       Alexander @ Leidinger.net
  GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91  3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list