ASSP out of date

[Scott Haneda]

On Nov 8, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> On Nov 7, 2008, at 20:49, Scott Haneda wrote:
>
>> Is there a long standing debate on this list that a normal reply  
>> does not go back to the list?  I am sorry to all of you who I have  
>> replied to direct, I did intend for it to go to the list for the  
>> benefit of the archives.
>
> Press the Reply All button in your email program to reply to the  
> list and the sender.
>
> Press the Reply button to reply only to the sender.
>
> Generally you'll want to use the Reply All button.

Yeah :) I just forget, most the other mail lists reply back to the  
list. Not a big deal.

>> Yes, these are just files, which is the part in the script that I  
>> am at now.
>>
>> First, there is the issue of needing to do things to the files  
>> while they are freshly unpacked.  I am yet to find a good way to  
>> recursively act on a set of files in TCL.
>
> [snip]
>
> There is a function fs-traverse in MacPorts designed for this. Grep  
> through the existing portfiles to see how this can be used.

Ok, cool, thanks.  Uhm, how does one grep though port files?  I mean I  
should install a few, and then locally grep my FS?

>> How does one decide where to put the final set of files?   
>> Currently, it looks like the old assp puts it in /opt/local/var but  
>> how was that decided?  Do I hard code that path, or is there a  
>> built in I am missing?
>
> The /opt/local part should be expressed as ${prefix} in the Portfile  
> since MacPorts could be in a different prefix. The /var part would  
> be hardcoded. I don't know what kinds of files assp installs so I  
> can't advise where they should go. The authors of assp don't have a  
> recommended standard install location?

It does not seem to matter, as they are just files.  The original port  
put them in /var which I do not think is a perfect place.  It looks  
like most put it in /usr/share/assp but I will confirm with the  
developerß

>> The old assp port file did some user and group adding, and I have  
>> never done that in the past to make this run. Is this a requirement  
>> to do so, or at least a good practice?  I will check with the  
>> developer, but I think the permissions are best set to the user  
>> that installed it.  Or in the OS X case, the logged in user I would  
>> assume. I can not see why this set of files needs to run as  
>> anything else, it has it's own http server, so permissions and user/ 
>> group, as long as the same as the http server, would be fine.
>
> I dislike ports that mess with my system users and groups. For one  
> thing, that means the port has to be installed as root; I prefer to  
> install as my own user whenever possible. If a user/group is  
> necessary for the software, then of course add it. If not, don't.

I agree, every time i put something in and it adds in a user, I have  
to wonder why, most of them do not need to.  The original port for  
assp did this, I will not be doing this.

>> In the old assp port I also see basically, once line of xinstall  
>> for every file that needs dealing with. Is there not a way to  
>> simply tell it to take a directory, and move it where it needs to  
>> go?  if not, what about the subdirectories, I have to move the  
>> individual files one at a time, and then how do I create those  
>> files parent directory?
>
> You can use "file copy" instead of "xinstall" to copy entire  
> directories.

Cool, nice, that is perfect.  That saves me about 20 lines in the  
port, or at least a foreach or three.

--
Scott