On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 10:36:36AM +0000, David Brownlee wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Christoph Badura wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 05:58:39PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> >>Actually, it should talk about both, IMO.
> >>When UPDATE_TARGET is not set, DEPENDS_TARGET is used instead, which is
> >>handy when some packages are also installed by hand to get consistent
> >>behaviour.

> >pkg_chk only ever invokes "make update" AFAICT. And "make update" reserves
> >the use of DEPENDS_TARGET for itself.  I think it is inappropriate to
> >document abuses of interfaces that are not producing consitent behaviour.

> 	Could you clarify a question on this:
> 	What should be set in /etc/mk.conf to ensure that when any
> 	package is built, if it requires building any dependencies, those
> 	packages will build binary packages?

I'm not sure about /etc/mk.conf.  Precisely because of "make update".
I suspect that a non-trivial .if construct is needed.
Maybe pkg_comp has a hint.

I've only ever used bulk builds to mass-produce binary packages.

When I install or update packages manually I use "make package DEPENDS_TARGET=package"
and "make update UPDATE_TARGET=package".  I seem to have good luck with
that.  I.e. I don't remember noticing missing binary packages for installed
package.  But I haven't checked carfully in a very long time.

It seems to me that pkg_chk could use similar command lines.

--chris