From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 5 15:00:37 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48CE7297 for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 15:00:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07359256F for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 15:00:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454DE28431 for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 17:00:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (ip-89-177-49-222.net.upcbroadband.cz [89.177.49.222]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73D8328422 for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 17:00:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5250298A.8090806@quip.cz> Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 17:00:26 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 Lightning/1.0b1 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Staging, packaging and more / side effect References: <20131003084814.GB99713@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20131003084814.GB99713@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 15:00:37 -0000 Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Hi all, > > I want to give to all porters infomations on the rationnale behind all the changes, > to explain why some things has happened, the rationale behind what we still need > to do to get the ports tree into a modern binary world. > > 1/ Staging > > You may has notice that staging has hit the ports tree, staging is something > really important, all packages system are using that feature for eons, sometime > called DESTDIR sometime called FAKEDIR. > > Staging is consistent in adding a new step while building packages: install > everything into ${STAGEDIR}. Then we can directly create packages out of that > directory without having to install into /. What the implementation does is: > With pkg_install (legacy package tools): > - Create a package from the stage directory > - Install that package. I appreciate staging (long-awaited feature). I think that it should be advertised longer befor it hits the tree with explanation of all changes and side effects. I was hit by one minor problem today - I used "make package clean" in ports dir to install some port and have it in binary package for backup at the same time. This doesn't work any more. Binary package is created and saved in /usr/ports/packages/All, but port is not installed. I know this is intended but it takes me a few moments before I solved the issue "why the port is not installed?", so I need to change my workflow from now. Miroslav Lachman