On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:32:14 +0200 Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 11:22:15PM +0100, Emmanuel Vadot wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:10:39 +0200 > > Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:49:07PM +0100, Emmanuel Vadot wrote: > > > > I think that the first question we want to ask is : Do we want to > > > > support LOCALBASE being different than /usr/local > > > > I honestly don't see any advantages of making it !=/usr/local/ and > > > > before we start putting a lot of new/useless(for I guess 99% of our > > > > user base) in the tree we should here why people are using /usr/pkg or > > > > whatever weird location. > > > > If they have some good argument, then we should proceed further. > > > > > > I would be delighted to be able to install _and use_ two independent > > > set of packages from the same base system install. Without recursing > > > to jails, X forwarding, etc. > > > > > > In fact I would like to use /usr/local and e.g /usr/local-i386 on amd64 > > > machine. I am fine with me building both of them in my instance of > > > poudriere. > > > > > > But indeed I am not sure if this worth the effort of many people, for many > > > hours. If it puts too high burden on everybody, then it is not a good > > > feature. Otherwise, it is very convenient in some situations. > > > > I understand this situation but I think that the best way for you do > > do that is to use pkg install -r /path/to/my/i386/packages > > > > Since you will need to tweak you PATH variable to start applications > > installed in /usr/local-i386 anyway it's not too much to tweak that to > > the pkg path for your i386 repo. > > > > The "downside" of using this method is that you will have > > a /usr/local/ under the /path/to/my/i386/packages. > > The "upside" of using this method is that you would be able to use the > > same i386 packages on a native i386 install and they would install > > in /usr/local/ (so no tweaking here). > If I can already use them from non-/usr/local prefix, then it is great > news (for me). But I have a reason to doubt. If you pkg -r packages you can use a lot of them. > For instance, a lot of applications are configured at build time to look > for /usr/local. Like, gcc with /usr/local/lib/gcc/<version>, and binutils, > which are actually one of the main use case for me. So I believe that > pkg install -r requires chroot/jail for the result to work. Yes there is still some cases like that, or packages having post-install script that don't handle -r. We've been working on that with bapt@ for a few months now and still do. The main motivation of rewriting everything in lua is to be able to do that but there is still a lot do to. Never the less we would appriciate some reports of people using packages installed with -r. -- Emmanuel Vadot <m...@bidouilliste.com> _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
