files/backuppc.in: - %%RC_SUBR%% macro replaced with "/etc/rc.subr" because of desupport for the RC_SUBR in bsd.port.mk. pkg-plist: - %%ETCDIR%%/hosts and %%ETCDIR%%/config.pl shouldn't be removed automatically during deinstallation because they are actual config files, not examples. This files dynamically created by complicated configuration process at installation time and may be automatically modified during upgrade. Makefile: - Removed unnecessary intermediate directory in BPC_DATADIR path. Fix: Patch attached with submission follows:
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->pgollucci I will take it
Responsible Changed From-To: pgollucci->freebsd-ports-bugs going to have enotime for the next 2 weeks, sorry
State Changed From-To: open->feedback Hi, I have committed the changes expect for the pkg-plist change. I cannot agree to that change (it would leave files behind on deinstall). Also the configure.pl script is not invoked at all when adding from package. Maybe you could rework the port to not invoke configure.pl script at all and leave it to the administrator as a manual post-install step?
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->pav Track
pav 2010-10-29 12:28:42 UTC FreeBSD ports repository Modified files: sysutils/backuppc Makefile sysutils/backuppc/files backuppc.in Log: - Fix rc script - Change /var/db/ path PR: ports/150881 Submitted by: Alexander Moisseev <moiseev@mezonplus.ru> (maintainer) Revision Changes Path 1.2 +2 -1 ports/sysutils/backuppc/Makefile 1.2 +1 -1 ports/sysutils/backuppc/files/backuppc.in _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
With enclosed patch the port would leave on deinstall only manually copied by administrator config files and configuration backups created during upgrade. Is it OK? Actually the configure.pl is complex all-in-one installation, configuration and upgrade script. For this reason packaging not possible without major change of source code. Does packaging make sense since the port does not build anything?
State Changed From-To: feedback->closed Committed, thanks, this was acceptable. As for your last question, it's up to you, having port if nothing else it gives an user a warning when new version is available.
pav 2010-11-06 18:55:37 UTC FreeBSD ports repository Modified files: sysutils/backuppc Makefile distinfo pkg-plist Log: - Make this port play nice with leftover config files PR: ports/150881 Submitted by: Alexander Moisseev <moiseev@mezonplus.ru> (maintainer) Revision Changes Path 1.3 +12 -2 ports/sysutils/backuppc/Makefile 1.2 +0 -1 ports/sysutils/backuppc/distinfo 1.2 +4 -4 ports/sysutils/backuppc/pkg-plist _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"