Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 03:53:53 +0800 From: Sunpoet Hsieh <sunpoet@sunpoet.net> To: Steve Wills <swills@freebsd.org> Cc: perl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: With or without .packlist? Message-ID: <CAMHz58SFgJy-aTvcREtsKDk_1Sd5K8Zw44d7d-gHWon68Lrkmg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20131014165958.GA1899@mouf.net> References: <20131010061045.GP16964@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20131010081342.GC26820@culot.org> <20131014165958.GA1899@mouf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Steve Wills <swills@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:13:42AM +0200, Frederic Culot wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > With the staging support, we can properly decide what we do pack or > not inside > > > the packages, the question now is do we keep the .packlist (in that > case they > > > need to be fixed because they are full of stage path :)) or should we > just drop > > > those files and no package them at all. > > > > > > It seems to me that most of the other operating systems are not > packaging. > > > > > > I have no clue what what those .packlist files are useful for, so I do > have no > > > opinion, would be nice to get a perl@ claim on this soon, as we > either need to > > > fix them or nuke them. > > > > > > btw: sunpoet has a PR I'm sitting one because of that: > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/182806 > > > > > > regards, > > > Bapt > > > > >From my own experience (which is far from extensive in this matter), the > > .packlist files are used for two different purposes. > > > > The first one is related to the management of modules via ExtUtils::* > > utilities (ExtUtils::Installed and ExtUtils::Packlist are the ones I am > > aware of), such as inventory management of modules. > > > > The second one is related to the building of standalone package, via > > modules such as App::FatPacker. One may use those to bundle a script and > > all its dependencies into a single standalone package, and to do so the > > .packlist files are relied upon. > > > > For the first use, I believe the .packlist files can safely be removed, > > because FreeBSD already provides all the necessary tools to perform such > > inventory management. But for the second use I am not sure... If we are > > to remove .packlist files we may end up with users complaining they > > could not bundle their scripts anymore (I already heard such complains > > from gentoo users for instance). But there might by other ways to > > package modules and dependencies which do not require .packlist files to > > be present. > > > > >From my own perspective, I believe the benefits we would get from > > removing those .packlist files (mainly easier integration with staging) > > exceeds the drawbacks, and I would agree to drop them. > > I'm somewhat on the fence, but if fixing the paths is troublesome, dropping > them is fine, IMHO. > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-perl@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-perl > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-perl-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > Hi perl folks, I would like to start from my staging patch (PR/182806). Currently we build perl modules in 3 ways: - USE_PERL5=configure: staging support is ready; create .packlist - USE_PERL5=modbuild: no staging support; no .packlist (*1) - USE_PERL5=modbuildtiny: no staging support; create .packlist (*1) .packlist creation is a default-on option of Module::Build but mat@turned it off http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/Mk/bsd.port.mk?r1=137914&r2=137915 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=79330 In order to provide staging support for USE_PERL5=modbuild*, I submitted the patch which contains 3 parts: 1. add staging support for USE_PERL5=modbuild* 2. post-stage:: target removes STAGEDIR prefix from .packlist 3. (only in v2 patch) create .packlist for USE_PERL5=modbuild As you can see, .packlist does not block staging support. I just try to save exp-run time by submitting them together. Personally, I would prefer to create/keep .packlist for all modules. It helps to bundle scripts/modules. Though we have other ways to generate such list (e.g. converted from "pkg info -l" output), it requires extra work. I see no harm to keep such small file (.packlist). We do not need to have final decision right now but I would suggest to fix staging and .packlist as soon as possible. I plan to commit the v1 patch [1] this weekend. 1. commit v1 patch [1] to provide staging support and fix .packlist. I plan to do it this weekend. 2. enable staging support for all USE_PERL5=modbuild* ports [2] (I could re-generate patch for modbuild ports) 3. depends on our decision of .packlist, modify perl5.mk [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~sunpoet/perl5-staging/perl5.mk.v1.patch [2] http://people.freebsd.org/~sunpoet/perl5-staging/modbuildtiny.patch Regards, sunpoet
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAMHz58SFgJy-aTvcREtsKDk_1Sd5K8Zw44d7d-gHWon68Lrkmg>