From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 10 17:01:29 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E82E1065680 for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 17:01:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A2998FC13 for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 17:01:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1M3COy-0008Ex-4X for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Sun, 10 May 2009 17:01:24 +0000 Received: from static-78-8-147-77.ssp.dialog.net.pl ([78.8.147.77]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 17:01:24 +0000 Received: from mwisnicki+freebsd by static-78-8-147-77.ssp.dialog.net.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 17:01:24 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: Marcin Wisnicki Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:01:12 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 19 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: static-78-8-147-77.ssp.dialog.net.pl User-Agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black) Sender: news Subject: [RFC] NO_INSTALL in meta-ports considered harmful X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:01:30 -0000 Some metaports (like print/cups) use NO_INSTALL. This will prevent such port from registering its installation in /var/db/ pkg, which is different behaviour from installing it from prebuilt package (where it registers just fine). IMHO not registering installation makes no sense and serves only to confuse users (I've installed cups yet pkg_info claims I didn't!) and causes unnecessary differences between software installed from ports vs pkgs, which may lead to other unexpected problems (like missing RUN_DEPENDS). Thus I advocate for more uniform handling of ports and packages by treating it as a bug and replacing any such use of NO_INSTALL with empty do-install target. Maybe even add a note to Porter's Handbook (though I see no reference to NO_INSTALL there). If anyone has some insightfull comments why NO_INSTALL is not evil then I'm all ears.