Brooks Davis wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:25:38PM +0200, G?bor K?vesd?n wrote:
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 05:59:18PM -0600, John E Hein wrote:
John E Hein wrote at 17:43 -0600 on Aug 9, 2006:
Well, the part that makes it annoying to duplicate in all ports is not
the two separate words (CHROOT DESTDIR), but that you have to test
defined(DESTDIR) && !empty(DESTDIR) before you can figure out whether
to use ${CHROOT} ${DESTDIR} or not.
So having that test to assign CHROOTDESTDIR or leave it empty in
bsd.port.mk allows the port writer to just always invoke it without
having to worry about testing for DESTDIR.
You could pass this var to pkg-install scripts, too (put it in the
standard *SUB* lists).
That way you don't have to do the dance that was added to
security/clamav/files/pkg-install.in:
if [ -n "%%DESTDIR%%" ]; then
PW="/usr/sbin/chroot %%DESTDIR%% pw"
CHOWN="/usr/sbin/chroot %%DESTDIR%% chown"
MKDIR="/usr/sbin/chroot %%DESTDIR%% mkdir -p"
else
PW="pw"
CHOWN="chown"
MKDIR="mkdir -p"
fi
but rather just:
PW="%%CHROOTDESTDIR%% pw"
CHOWN="%%CHROOTDESTDIR%% chown"
MKDIR="%%CHROOTDESTDIR%% mkdir -p"
This seems bogus. I can't think of any good reason why packages should
differ based on the valid of DESTDIR. Instead the pkg-install script
should be run inside the chroot.
-- Brooks
We wanted to go that way with garga when working on security/clamav, but
we realized that we can't just do chroot /foo pkg-install, since the
script is not located in the chroot itself. Do you have an another idea,
how to chroot those scripts?
My inclination would be something like:
PKG_INSTALL_TEMP=`mktemp ${DESTDIR}/tmp/pkg_install` && \
(${CAT} ${PKG_INSTALL} > ${PKG_INSTALL_TEMP}; \
${SH} ${PKG_INSTALL_TEMP}; \
${RM} ${PKG_INSTALL_TEMP})
I think we should ideally introduce a feature to allow ports to
automatically run pkg-install and stuff the code in bsd.port.mk so ports
don't have to know about DESTDIR in this case. Actually, ports where
pkg-install and the pre/post-install targets duplicate code (often
slightly differently) drive me nuts so I'd prefer a NO_AUTOPKGINSTALL,
but that would take some real work so a positive flag is probably better
initially.
-- Brooks
This is a good idea, but there's a big mess in this area as you already
said, so I think it would be a long term goal. I find John's solution
pretty good for now. An another item for automatization would be to
install PORTDOCS into DOCSDIR in post-install phase. and introduce
NO_PORTDOCSINSTALL or something like that to turn this off. But both of
them needs a lot of modification in affected ports as well.
--
Cheers,
Gabor
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
