Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:27:33 -0600 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> To: Alejandro Pulver <alepulver@freebsd.org> Cc: "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Request for Features: Ports Re-engineering Message-ID: <47669565.3090404@math.missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <20071217114211.0c10d1c3@deimos.mars.bsd> References: <4766650C.4020305@gmail.com> <47667E17.6030004@math.missouri.edu> <20071217114211.0c10d1c3@deimos.mars.bsd>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alejandro Pulver wrote: > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:48:07 -0600 > Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> wrote: >> One thing to look at is package building. I don't know how they build >> the official packages, but my guess is that they build each one from a >> clean system. But, for example, you have tons of little ports each >> depending on xorg-server, and to rebuild xorg-server for each little >> port must be a real burden. >> > > The packages are built in a clean system, which is a chroot environment > (i.e. everything in / from a base install) recreated each time a port > is built. Packages are used, they aren't rebuilt each time. See: > > /usr/ports/Tools/portbuild: the scripts running in pointyhat > http://tinderbox.marcuscom.com/: based and synchronized with the other, > but preferable for "user" builds (web interface, etc). Ah, yes, that makes a lot of sense. So no wonder people are bothered by the slow speeds of pkg_install. > Auto-detection is certainly avoidable. Some for example only enable > detection of MMX/SSE/etc instructions when not building in > pointyhat/tinderbox. IIRC ports should respect the users' choice, but > it's not easy with the current OPTIONS handling (some have knobs that > can be set to on/off/auto). > > I think this could be solved (for both current and possible new system) > like it's done with Python/wxWidgets/Apache/etc where there are port > preference/user preference/auto detection/system default, in a properly > fallback order. The problem is that there is no framework to do that > with OPTIONS for individual ports. I think that if a totally new system is created, it should be done in such a way that the port creators are forced to use a systematic approach for OPTIONS. This is currently done in many different ways. > The messages in pkg-message are packaged with the description/etc in > the generated package. However some ports just print text to the > screen, and that isn't recorded. It mostly depends on the port, but a > recording framework may be useful (i.e. echo to screen and pkg-message). My point was not that ports sometimes generates messages that packages don't. Rather it is that packages created using "make package" have messages whereas those created with "pkg_create" don't. (Openoffice is a good example of this.) Stephen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47669565.3090404>