On 2012-06-16 22:36, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 16/06/2012 20:11, Olli Hauer wrote: >> With one RPM spec file you can build foo, foo-docs, foo-devlibs and >> foo-examples in one build and get 4 rpm's in one run. >> >> With the ports infrastructure we have to run several builds >> one for foo, one for foo-devlibs and maybe one for foo-docs if docs are >> generated. > > Exactly -- that's precisely the functionality that sub-packages is going > to introduce for the ports. You do one build stage, and can then split > up the results into several different packages. One port, several pkgs.
sounds good > > This will require the use of a staging directory, so you can package up > a port without having to have it installed. Staging is another new > feature currently on the drawing board. > >> Also DEPENDENCY handling can become a real mess if a port needs >> foo, foo-devlibs , bar, bar-devlibs ... to build. > > Well, maybe. For an end-user system where you install from pkgs (in > this case, meaning pkgng -- that's the driver for most of these new > features ) you only really need the base 'foo-0.99' package: > dependencies will be pretty much equivalent to what there is now. > Optionall you'll probably want foo--docs and foo--examples too, but you > don't have to have them if installing a really stripped down system. > There will probably be some sort of global setting to say automatically > install docs and/or examples when you install the primary port. > > When you're doing pkg building, then yes, you'ld need to install a bunch > more pkgs -- they'd be BUILD_DEPENDS rather than RUN_DEPENDS -- but the > ports infrastructure should take care of that. Using a package builder > like poudriere to maintain your own pkg repo should become standard > procedure for supporting any reasonably sized installation, and that > will gloss over all the boring detail of that for you. > also sounds good to me, at the moment I stopped testing pkgng since I use exclusive tinderbox with several builds for prod machines and haven't had the time to look deeper into the ./tb tbcleanup bug (tb head) which wiped twice a view builds from two different build machines. http://www.marcuscom.com/pipermail/tinderbox-list/2012-May/002601.html -- Regards, olli _______________________________________________ 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"
