Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:25:06 -0800 From: Jason <jhelfman@e-e.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: make package for ports, general question Message-ID: <20100225052506.GA987@Jason-Helfmans-MacBook-Pro.local>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello All, I have been converting our internal packaging system from one system to ports, and have been very successful with it so far. Having lots of fun, as well, if that can be said of ports :) I think it can. So far I have 14! I am learning a lot about ports, and have managed to localize so much and finding how adaptable the system is. That being said, I ran into an item today that had me perplexed. Basically, it comes down to this: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/pkg-install.html Why is it that "make package" doesn't include the execution instructions noted in the Makefile. To me, with my new knowledge of the ports system, seems like double the work for development and maintaining a port and package. I'm not just speaking for someone that maintains internal ports, but the many developers that maintain ports in the official ports tree for FreeBSD. Is their a solution or patch out there that may take care of this, or a method for which I could adopt that would take out this seemingly extra step to support a binary package? My goal was to make sure everything worked under the ports tree for which I am creating, and I had assumed the that package structure would just follow suit. I see that assumption is wrong, now, but would be interested in exploring how others are handing internal ports trees and distribution to their different environments. Ideally, I would like to address the issue with the binary packages, as the ports tree adoption has been very successful. Thanks so much, Jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100225052506.GA987>