Getting rid of Nautilus

[kraileth]

We're not shipping any release with the GNOME³ desktop and thus don't really need Nautilus. However we use the gksu package which pulls in the former program as a dependency.

I've played a bit with the sysutils/gksu port to see if I can get the dependency removed. Just doing that is trivial but I think the best thing to do here is to make building the Nautilus extension a port option and enable it by default. This could then be upstreamed to FreeBSD ports since it doesn't actually change anything. Still it would enable us to just deselect that option for gksu once we roll our own packages. That way we wouldn't have to maintain a separate fork. (I've already talked to ASX about that and he agrees with trying to upstream this.)

After some reading in the Porter's handbook I think that I have succeeded in adding the port option the way preferred by FreeBSD. However I'd like somebody to look over it here before I attempt to upstream it (it's my first changed port that's supposed to be better than "good-enough-for-myself" quality).

I made two patches for sysutils/gksu's Makefile but I was unable to attach them here. The forum will neither allow the file extension ".patch" nor ".txt". I also didn't find anything regarding allowed file types in the FAQ (though I guess that the attach file functionality is mainly meant for images). Is there any easy way to change the allowed extensions to include ".patch" or should I just upload the patches on the web and put links here?

[ASX]

Thanks kraileth, and of course I agree, we can finally get rid of those 'trackers' that come with nautilus.

About FreeBSD ports submission, there was a recent discussion on FreeBSD forum about best practice to submit new port (and changed ports): basically you will be required to attach either a Synth or Poudriere test report which demonstrate the port is correct and build / install flawlessly. It is a non written rule ... but that is.

(see synth man page, synth test).

You can email me your files, I will do some test.

[kraileth]

I've uploaded three patch files that can be downloaded here: http://www.elderlinux.org/gbsd-dev/ports/gksu/

All of them can be applied with patch -p1 -i patchname in directory /usr/ports/sysutils/gksu.

01_gksu_indent.patch just adds more indentation (because I needed to add some fairly long definitions) and I wanted to separate this so that the actual changes are not cluttered with this.
02_gksu_option.patch is the main patch adding the ports option, dependency stuff, plist... It increments the revision and adds the missing license as well.
03_gksu_plist.patch removes two files from the main plist that are added in the Makefile only if the new option is set (they are not built otherwise and packaging the port would fail).

Please have a look at this and test. Any feedback is welcome and once things look good I'll try to get the changes committed to FreeBSD ports.

BTW: Does anybody know exactly what OPTIONS_SUB is good for? Sure, I read about it, and while I understand what it does, I'm not sure about the implications of using it. E.g. in which cases would you use it and in which not?

[kraileth]

Has anybody found the time to give this a whirl? If it works I'd like to send it in to FreeBSD. (And thanks for pointing me towards the poudriere/synth requirement, ASX!)

[ASX]

Has anybody found the time to give this a whirl? If it works I'd like to send it in to FreeBSD. (And thanks for pointing me towards the poudriere/synth requirement, ASX!)

will try it today.

[ASX]

Has anybody found the time to give this a whirl? If it works I'd like to send it in to FreeBSD. (And thanks for pointing me towards the poudriere/synth requirement, ASX!)

will try it today.

Hmm .. apologies, no I didn't.

However, I was thinking about how to deal with this (a changed freebsd port) in the context of our repository;
one thing we could do is to substitute the original port with yours.
That look like feasible to me, just store it on github and we will include/replace it each time we update the source tree.

The drawbacks, is that in the meantime it wll need to be maintained manually, at least until it will found its way upstream. (I just don't want to deal with freebsd ports management bureaucracy).

[ASX]

kraileth, please fork the ghostbsd-ports tree, add your gksu ports there and request a pull:

https://github.com/GhostBSD/ports

So that your port can be used in place of the freebsd one.

~~~

I will subsequently manage the substitution of the freebsd gksu port, when merging in the gbsd ports tree, for use on the builder server.

[kraileth]

kraileth, please fork the ghostbsd-ports tree, add your gksu ports there and request a pull:

Sorry for the delay... I cannot currently do that because I'm offline until my ISP finally gets around to fixing my phone connection. I'll report back as soon as I can go online at home again.

[ASX]

kraileth, please fork the ghostbsd-ports tree, add your gksu ports there and request a pull:

Sorry for the delay... I cannot currently do that because I'm offline until my ISP finally gets around to fixing my phone connection. I'll report back as soon as I can go online at home again.

No problem, best of luck with the expected ISP intervent.

[kraileth]

No problem, best of luck with the expected ISP intervent.

Yeah, had a lot of "fun" - like waiting for over 4.5 (!) in line before a real person (who then couldn't help me) even answered... This totally sucks. But I'm back, anyway, and tried catching up with everything that happened in between. Of course I've also uploaded the modified gksu port and created the pull request as you asked for.