Hi porters, I do agree with the idea of a fakeroot. As bapt said, it will make supporting NOPORTDOCS easier: no more patches against the vendor Makefile(s) !!!
It will also ensure the quality of the _packages_. For example, if the port create an empty folder, it's common that the package forget to create it. As the real installation is made with the pkg_add tool with this implementation, the porter will directly notice the issue. The major concern with this implementation is, IMHO, the intensive usage of I/O. But I'm sure we can reduce its impact on performance. To conclude, I think this patch is worth it. It'd be interesting to have the advice of a portmgr@ to know if it gonna break some obscure parts of the ports framework. Regards, Julien On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Baptiste Daroussin <baptiste.darous...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have updated the fakeroot patch, it now can apply on an uptodate version of > the ports. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/133815 > > For information the fakeroot patch is a port of the midnightbsd's mports > fakeroot > to freebsd's ports. > > What it does: > - it is optional: you can activate it globally with USE_FAKE=yes in > /etc/make.conf or per ports by adding USE_FAKE=yes in the ports Makefile > > - it create a fakeroot directory in the WRKDIR where all the binary are > installed first > > - then it creates a package using the plist and finding its files only in the > fakeroot directory > > - in the end it installs the created packages > > - it respects the DESTDIR implementation (it is not the same kind of feature > nor > the same goal) > > - it does not require any modification on actual ports (except for those which > are already not clean) but will allow to cleanup some ports if wanted. > > Why this patch: > - it prevents installing crufts thing on users systems (only what is found in > the plist is really installed, so the package is always clean) > > I now that porters should take care of not breaking the plist, but it often > happens, helping them by a system that completly use the plist file is IMHO a > better thing, and it prevents users from being inpacted by a lazy porter. > > - it allow to create tinderbox that does not need to install a ports to get > the > package build, only build-depends ports will be installed > > - it allow easier handling of NOPORTDOCS, NOPORTEXAMPLES and so on, because it > creates the packages first using plist to know which files should be > packaged, > the porter should only take care of one case, the case everything is > installed, then he adapts the plists to have or not some files depending on > the options the user have. > > This should cleanup a lot some ports, and should easier the respectness of > some porting guidelines > > What could be done: > because it generates packages first we could imagine some lint programs that > analyse the package content to test that it respects some of the freebsd > recommandation for packages (usefull for porters), it could help the > validation > of new/update ports submission and help preventting commiting buggy stuff. > > Limitation: > this path (currently activable on depend) add from disk usage than the way > ports > actually works: > > without the patch: > build -> copy on the filesystem > with the path: > build -> copy-on-fakeroot->package_building->package-installing > > In the future it could be improved by provinding a version of pkg_create that > fake the package creation by directly install on FS so that could become > build->copy-on-fakeroot->package-installing > > This patch is not yet complete, it should work with classical ports that use > gmake or make and with python, I have only done that currenly as a proof of > concept. > > Tell me if you think that this patch could be interesting or not > > Regards, > Bapt _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"