From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 1 23:45:48 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF2C116A4CE for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:45:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from phoenix.buildlink.org (buildlink.org [69.20.59.154]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A1D243D2F for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:45:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jlam@NetBSD.org) Received: from [10.0.1.22] (unknown [66.155.233.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phoenix.buildlink.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98CC840F160; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:45:47 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <420014BF.3050702@NetBSD.org> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:46:07 -0500 From: Johnny Lam User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christopher JS Vance References: <200502010126.59366.danny@ricin.com> <20050201163725.GA22338@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050201223104.GB725@nu.org> In-Reply-To: <20050201223104.GB725@nu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Danny Pansters cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: A bit of discussion: Why don't we use a stage? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:45:48 -0000 Christopher JS Vance wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 08:37:25AM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote: > >> I use staging areas for many of my ports, but not all. I find them very >> useful for ports that are mostly just bunches of files, for instance PHP >> web applications. It's non-trivial to do this for all applications >> though. Many applications really want to be be installed where you told >> them they would be when you built them and they have hard coded paths >> which prevent doing something else. This is certainly fixable, but I >> seriously doubt it's worth the effort in many cases. > > > OpenBSD seems to succeed, and can be told to use systrace to enforce > that things get staged right. Of course, they have far fewer ports > than FreeBSD. Staging requires more effort on the part of the port maintainer to check that all of those caveats that Brooks listed aren't tripped over. I think FreeBSD Ports has been really successful because it *doesn't* impose a lot of effort on the part of the port maintainer, and losing this property is a bad thing. Cheers, -- Johnny Lam