On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 11:29:18AM -0800, Chris wrote: > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:02:23 +0100 Mateusz Piotrowski [email protected] said > > > On 2/29/20 12:15 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:06:19PM +0100, Mateusz Piotrowski wrote: > > >> Do we have any (perhaps unwritten) policy for when to use TMPPLIST? And > > > when > > >> should a port maintainer stick to pkg-plist? > > > We do not. A port maintainer should stick to pkg-plist. > > > > That's what I thought. > > > > Is there a reason for it? Does it all boil down to that fact that > > pkg-plist is much more explicit and easier to debug/review? Or there is > > another reason? > TMPPLIST is an artifact of the QA process when making a port. It is used
So, I stopped reading there because as this is wrong, all that comes afterwards was also ;-) TMPPLIST is the file where all of PLIST_FILES/DIR go after being processsed for %%FOO%% placeholders, it is where pkg-plist ends up, also after being processed for placeholders. It is also where stuff get added, like .info files from the INFO variable, @ldconfig calls from USE_LDCONFIG, rc file from USE_RC_SUBR, docs and examples from PORTDOCS and PORTEXAMPLES, and probably a few other things pile up in there. All in all, TMPPLIST is the temporary file where every file, directory, keyword... utimately every part of the framework, end up putting what needs to end up in the package. It is also used in the QA process, to tell the user if stuff is wrong wrt what is really installed, but it is not the other way round. -- Mathieu Arnold
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
