Hi,
Hm, your results seem to be promising! However, I would recommend you to use the D_NAME and D_NAME-VER plist_subs where applicable for the easier maintenance.
I didn't get what you're trying to say. If you're talking about following line, then yes I should have used a variable there like %%D_LIBDIR_REL%%.
@dirrm lib/utf8-string-0.3.4
Oh, sorry. I was thinking of the following (demonstrated by examples): %%D_LIBSUBDIR_REL%%/HSutf8-string-0.3.4.o -> %%D_LIBSUBDIR_REL%%/HS%%D_NAME-VER%%.o %%D_LIBSUBDIR_REL%%/libHSutf8-string-0.3.4.a -> %%D_LIBSUBDIR_REL%%/libHS%%D_NAME-VER%%.a %%PROFILE%%%%D_LIBSUBDIR_REL%%/libHSutf8-string-0.3.4_p.a %%PROFILE%%%%D_LIBSUBDIR_REL%%/libHS%%D_NAME-VER%%_p.a -> But they are just minor nits :)
[..] is that even predictable prior to installation what files are going to be installed ?
In my opinion, yes. I observed that files to be installed are usually placed in the ${WRKSRC}/dist/build directory. Of course, object files (*.o, but not in the root! -- eg. HSutf8-string-0.3.4.o) and the "autogen" directory should be omitted. By the way, there is another method for automatically generating packing lists, mentioned in the Porter's Handbook [1]. It is universal, but a bit complicated for me.
Although as of now documentation generated by the port is automatically tracked by bsd.haskell.mk. So no need to explicitly mention it in the pkg-plist.
Yes, and it is very nice. When I started to "improve PORTDOCS" in my recent port updates, I did almost the same: ports Makefiles have a clever machinery to automatically generating packing lists for PORT{DOCS,DATA,EXAMPLES}. [2]
HSCOLOUR_VERSION?= `HsColour -version | cut -d ' ' -f2-`
I am not sure whether it is a right thing, but it helped.
There is a patch already present on that PR[2] which updates bsd.haskell.mk.
Ooops :) Cheers, :g [1] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/plist-autoplist.html [2] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/install.html#INSTALL-DO...