cvs commit: ports/mail/dk-milter Makefile pkg-plist ports/mail/dk-milter/files milter-dk.sh.in

[Sam Lawrance]

On 17/01/2006, at 9:45 PM, Pav Lucistnik wrote:

> Sam Lawrance píše v út 17. 01. 2006 v 21:39 +1100:
>> Over to ports@ ...
>>
>> On 17/01/2006, at 10:50 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>>> Pav Lucistnik wrote:
>>>> pav         2006-01-15 09:11:04 UTC
>>>>
>>>>   FreeBSD ports repository
>>>>
>>>>   Modified files:
>>>>     mail/dk-milter       Makefile pkg-plist
>>>>     mail/dk-milter/files milter-dk.sh.in
>>>>   Log:
>>>>   - Convert RC script to rc_subr
>>>>
>>>>   PR:             ports/91595  http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-
>>>> pr.cgi?pr=91595
>>>>   Submitted by:   Hirohisa Yamaguchi <umq at ueo.co.jp>
>>>>
>>>>   Revision  Changes    Path
>>>>   1.6       +3 -2      ports/mail/dk-milter/Makefile
>>>>   1.2       +43 -48    ports/mail/dk-milter/files/milter-dk.sh.in
>>>>   1.2       +0 -1      ports/mail/dk-milter/pkg-plist
>>>>
>>>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/dk-milter/
>>>> Makefile.diff?&r1=1.5&r2=1.6&f=h
>>>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/dk-milter/files/
>>>> milter-dk.sh.in.diff?&r1=1.1&r2=1.2&f=h
>>>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/dk-milter/pkg-
>>>> plist.diff?&r1=1.1&r2=1.2&f=h
>>>
>>> It's not a big enough issue to warrant a change for this port,  
>>> but in
>>> general it's a good idea if the name of the rc.d file is the same
>>> as what
>>> the script PROVIDE's. This removes one potential source of
>>> confusion for users.
>>
>> Is it worth a patch to portlint?  There are probably a stack of other
>> rc-related things that could be checked for, too.  For example, if an
>> rc script is in the packing list, warn to use USE_RC_SUBR.  Others?
>
> If an rc.d script is in the packing list! Old styled scripts are not
> affected. How will you check that from portlint?

Some grepwork?  I've seen people put new-style rc.d scripts in the  
packing list and install them in a post-install target.