State of the Porters' Handbook

[Dominic Fandrey]

On 28/10/2013 11:03, John Marino wrote:
> On 10/28/2013 10:54, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
>> On 28/10/2013 10:34, John Marino wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2013 10:29, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's a handfull. What about installers that hard-code directories
>>>> during install?
>>>
>>> They can hardcode into the stage directory.  Anywhere else is wrong and
>>> has to be fixed.
>>
>> But then they won't be usable once installed into /usr/local.
> 
> If there are files in those directories, they'll be on the plist and
> stage handles them.  I'd have to look up how to create empty directories
> properly.

Stage replaceses strings in installed files?

>>>>> You don't have a choice with supporting stage -- new ports without stage
>>>>> aren't accepted.  So that's why you have to bother.  :)
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't sound acceptable, considering the feature isn't even
>>>> mentioned in the Porters' Handbook.
>>>
>>> Bapt has made several calls for help to document this in the Porters
>>> Handbook.  He's said it's on his plate but he's behind and has asked for
>>> the help.  Maybe you could help him out?
>>
>> So far I see stage as a problem, not something I want to advance.
> 
> I don't know how to respond to this.
> 1. It indicates that don't understand the benefits, nor that it's 5
> years overdue, nor that its sorely needed

I can see the benefits for less error prone package building. But right now
it's just additional work coming my way.

> 2. Stage is not going away.  There is not another option.
> 3. You've been given a source of documentation.  It's not in the
> handbook, but it does exist in some form.  What more do you need to
> progress?

There is a procedure. Stuff belongs into the handbook. Stick to it.


-- 
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?