Maintainer Updates: linux-flashplugin: 1) Change MAINTAINER from ports@FreeBSD.org to ports@brandon.dvalentine.com. I am volunteering to take over maintainership. 2) Makefile and pkg-plist cleanup. Switch to using PORTDOCS and DOCSDIR. 3) Set NO_PACKAGE and RESTRICTED. Macromedia license forbirds redistribution. 4) Set LATEST_LINK to avoid collision with linux-flashplugin6. linux-flashplugin6: 1) Update MAINTAINER email address. 2) Set LATEST_LINK to avoid collision with linux-flashplugin. 3) Makefile and pkg-plist cleanup. Switch to using PORTDOCS and DOCSDIR. 4) Set NO_PACKAGE and RESTRICTED. Macromedia license forbirds redistribution. This patch also updates ports/LEGAL to document the license restrictions. The Macromedia license can be found here: http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/license/desktop/ The crucial clause is 3a which states: "You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network." I have marked this PR serious because I believe it is important to get the license issue corrected as soon as possible. How-To-Repeat: N/A
Brandon D. Valentine wrote: Brandon D. Valentine wrote: > --- linux-flashplugin/pkg-plist 21 Jul 2001 14:27:22 -0000 1.4 > +++ linux-flashplugin/pkg-plist 19 Feb 2004 09:45:17 -0000 ... > -%%PLUGINSDIR%%/ShockwaveFlash.class > -%%PLUGINSDIR%%/libflashplayer.so ... > +@unexec rm -f %D/%%PLUGINSDIR%%/ShockwaveFlash.class %D/%%PLUGINSDIR%%/libflashplayer.so > --- linux-flashplugin6/pkg-plist 19 Jun 2003 02:18:51 -0000 1.2 > +++ linux-flashplugin6/pkg-plist 19 Feb 2004 09:45:17 -0000 ... > -%%PLUGINSDIR%%/flashplayer.xpt > -%%PLUGINSDIR%%/libflashplayer.so ... > +@unexec rm -f %D/%%PLUGINSDIR%%/flashplayer.xpt %D/%%PLUGINSDIR%%/libflashplayer.so Is there a reason for doing this? Oliver
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:51:57PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > > Is there a reason for doing this? Yes. Though I must admit that it just took me a few minutes to remember why myself. In the do-install target I have made these changes: - @${MKDIR} ${PREFIX}/${PLUGINSDIR} - @${LN} -sf ${PREFIX}/lib/linux-flashplugin6/${f} ${PREFIX}/${PLUGINSDIR}/ +.if exists(${PLUGINSDIR}) + @${LN} -sf ${PREFIX}/lib/linux-flashplugin6/${f} ${PREFIX}/${PLUGINSDIR} +.endif Both ports previously did the wrong thing and created PLUGINSDIR whether the netscape-linux or linux-mozilla ports were installed or not. Now, the port will only install symlinks if those ports are already installed. If those browsers are installed after flash is installed, the linkfarm scripts included with those browsers will find these plugins and create those symlinks on their own. Because I no longer explicity create PLUGINSDIR, I can't rely on it existing during deinstall. I couldn't list the symlinks in pkg-plist any longer because there would be errors during deinstall on systems without one of those browser ports installed. "@unexec rm -f" will always succeed even if the files don't exist and deinstall will not emit any errors. I have seen several other ports use this trick. An alternative I have considered is to conditionally set %%PLUGINSDIR%% to "@comment" via PLIST_SUB when the PLUGINSDIR doesn't exist. The problem with that is this scenario: 1) User installs linux-flashplugin6. 2) User installs linux-mozilla. 3) linux-mozilla port's linkfarm script installs symlink into PLUGINSDIR. 4) User deinstalls linux-flashplugin6. 5) There's now a dead symlink in PLUGINSDIR. The way I've chosen to do it at least ensures that the symlinks always get cleaned up. Perhaps I shouldn't be removing symlinks created by another port, but at present those ports create symlinks at install time based on whether my ports are installed. There are uglier things lurking in the linux browser ports. I have been thinking for some time about proposing a central linux_browser_plugins directory similar to the ${X11BASE}/lib/browser_plugins. This would go a long way toward taking care of the various hacks strewn throughout ports related to Linux browsers and plugins. This however will require effort on the part of many port maintainers and I wasn't ready to tackle it in this update. HTH, Brandon D. Valentine -- brandon@dvalentine.com http://www.geekpunk.net Pseudo-Random Googlism: february is juvenile firesetters prevention month
Brandon D. Valentine wrote: > In the do-install target I have made these changes: > > - @${MKDIR} ${PREFIX}/${PLUGINSDIR} > - @${LN} -sf ${PREFIX}/lib/linux-flashplugin6/${f} ${PREFIX}/${PLUGINSDIR}/ > +.if exists(${PLUGINSDIR}) > + @${LN} -sf ${PREFIX}/lib/linux-flashplugin6/${f} ${PREFIX}/${PLUGINSDIR} > +.endif > > Both ports previously did the wrong thing and created PLUGINSDIR whether > the netscape-linux or linux-mozilla ports were installed or not. Now, > the port will only install symlinks if those ports are already > installed. If those browsers are installed after flash is installed, > the linkfarm scripts included with those browsers will find these > plugins and create those symlinks on their own. [...] > > 1) User installs linux-flashplugin6. > 2) User installs linux-mozilla. > 3) linux-mozilla port's linkfarm script installs symlink into PLUGINSDIR. > 4) User deinstalls linux-flashplugin6. > 5) There's now a dead symlink in PLUGINSDIR. > > The way I've chosen to do it at least ensures that the symlinks always > get cleaned up. > > Perhaps I shouldn't be removing symlinks created by another port, but at > present those ports create symlinks at install time based on whether my > ports are installed. There are uglier things lurking in the linux > browser ports. Ok, I understand what should be done here. May I make two suggestions: - it would be nice to have the link creation in a pkg-install script, since the autodetection fails if the port is installed from a package - a more-or-less short comment what would be removed and why wouldn't be bad, (especially because this may remove symlinks not created by the port). I'm not sure where to place this comments, though. Perhaps the pkg-install script where the links are created is a good place. You can execute the post-install script with something like post-install: ${SETENV} "PKG_PREFIX=${PREFIX}" ${SH} ${PKGINSTALL} ${PKGNAME} POST-INSTALL to avoid code duplication, but this may make your Makefile longer if this is the only thing you do in port-install. Otherwise the patches look good to me Oliver
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 01:31:36AM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > > Ok, I understand what should be done here. May I make two suggestions: Thanks for reviewing this, Oliver. > - it would be nice to have the link creation in a pkg-install script, > since the autodetection fails if the port is installed from a package The port sets NO_PACKAGE and RESTRICTED. Do I still need to worry about pkg-install time? =) > - a more-or-less short comment what would be removed and why wouldn't be > bad, > (especially because this may remove symlinks not created by the port). > I'm not sure where to place this comments, though. Perhaps the pkg-install > script where the links are created is a good place. I'm not sure where the best place to put this is either. Should I just put a comment in the Makefile or do I need to print a warning to the user at install time? Thanks, Brandon D. Valentine -- brandon@dvalentine.com http://www.geekpunk.net Pseudo-Random Googlism: brandon is een experiment plaats met unieke jurysoftware
State Changed From-To: open->closed Committed, thanks!
Brandon D. Valentine wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 01:31:36AM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > >>Ok, I understand what should be done here. May I make two suggestions: > > Thanks for reviewing this, Oliver. You are welcome. Thanks for your explanations. >>- it would be nice to have the link creation in a pkg-install script, >> since the autodetection fails if the port is installed from a package > > The port sets NO_PACKAGE and RESTRICTED. Do I still need to worry about > pkg-install time? =) Maybe. Users might decide to build packages locally (eg to update multiple machines, like a lab). >>- a more-or-less short comment what would be removed and why wouldn't be >>bad, >> (especially because this may remove symlinks not created by the port). >> I'm not sure where to place this comments, though. Perhaps the pkg-install >> script where the links are created is a good place. > > I'm not sure where the best place to put this is either. Should I just > put a comment in the Makefile or do I need to print a warning to the > user at install time? No, I guess users aren't really interested. It's more stupid committers asking the same stupid questions over & over again. Maybe you want to include some of this in the next revision. Oliver