Why does everybody switch to dynamic plists?
ahze at ahze.net
Fri Jan 21 12:54:29 PST 2005
On Jan 21, 2005, at 3:34 PM, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:52:02 +0100, Alexander Leidinger
> <Alexander at Leidinger.net> wrote:
>> 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.
this isn't always true. look at www/mozilla or multimedia/vlc. Each have
thousands of plist files and hundreds that change depending on how the
end-user configures the port. It's more reliable to use dynamic plist's
for these ports. But all in all I like static plist's best.
>> 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.
> I, one, who is on your side. Two people wasn't happy with me when I
> refused to switch from static to dynamic in games/wesnoth.
> games/wesnoth is getting near 3k lines. ;-)
> -- mezz7 at cox.net - mezz at FreeBSD.org
> FreeBSD GNOME Team
> http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome at FreeBSD.org
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-ports