Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:40:14 -0800 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: NO_PACKAGE and NO_CDROM Message-ID: <199604040940.BAA05206@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The NO_PACKAGE variable indicates that the package is not to be built. This can be for a variety of reasons, from (1) too many configuration options, and it doesn't make sense to build a binary package, (2) the hostname is compiled in (or something like that) and again it doesn't make sense to build binary packages, to (3) the port is commercial/restrictedly copyrighted, and we can't sell/distribute tarballs or binaries. As you can see, the last thing is quite different from the others, and "don't sell for profit" type of copyrights really have nothing to do with our ability to build and distribute packages over ftp. However, I have recommended porters to use this variable so that we can just safely "grab" the tree I've been building with "make package" and slap it on the CDROM. What do you guys think about adding a NO_CDROM variable (name subject to change) that means "the distfile and package of this port can't be put and sold on a CDROM"? If this is set in the Makefile, and the user has FOR_CDROM (name definitely subject to change) in the environment/Makefile/command line, it will act like a NO_PACKAGE port (i.e., "make package" will be a no-op). I'll have to be a bit more careful but since I usually do a full package fetch/rebuild before a release anyway, I'll just have to make sure that I have FOR_CDROM set during that stage. And this will enable us to have more distfiles/packages on the ftp site. Comments? Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604040940.BAA05206>