Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 03:15:05PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: >> Right now, using DESTDIR is not the default. I certainly agree that >> this should change. >> >> Your patch seems to be doing things in wrong order. Specifically, I >> don't understand why it is reasonable to mark packages broken because of >> lack of DESTDIR support when the default is not to use DESTDIR support. >> I just checked - at least on the 2011Q4 branch, 'make replace' on a >> package uses DESTDIR with PKG_DEVELOPER=yes, and doesn't otherwise. (I >> have PKG_DEVELOPER=yes on almost all machines.) >> >> Steps that I think should happen are: >> >> 1) Change default to use DESTDIR, with or without PKG_DEVELOPER. >> Start having the norm for bulk builds to use this (perhaps they do, >> but I'd expect default behavior for public bulk builds). Have an >> option to set it to the old way. This is really the most important >> change, and I see no reason not to do this right now. >> >> This is is easy; just remove the .if on PKG_DEVELOPER on line 428 of >> bsd.prefs.mk, and replace with "USE_DESTDIR?= yes". >> >> 2) Change the current warning to be always enabled. I see no reason >> not to do this immediately > > I've taken these two steps, adapting your patch slightly. Thanks for > providing it. I am trying to be useful :-) and you're quite welcome - that sounds good. >> 3) Change the code, similarly to your patch, to set BROKEN if both a) >> USE_DESTDIR=yes and b) the package is not DESTDIR-ready. I see no >> reason not to do this right now. > > I suggest the attached patch for this. Seems to work as expected for > me. While I said I saw no reason to wait, particularly after reading Aleksej's comments, I think we should wait for fallout from steps 1/2. We don't have a handle on the unintended consequences. (If I knew of any, I would have said, but there's what we don't know.) >> 4) Remove the option to use other than DESTDIR mode. Given the >> progress, I expect pretty soon the number of deficient packages will >> be really small, instead of just small. But I don't think we've >> reached the time to do this step. > > Ok, so let's talk about this step again in a month or so. We can of course discuss at any time, but I think the key is getting few enough packages non-DESTDIR-capable that we think losing those is ok. At some point the burden will shift from those who want to change to DESTDIR-oonly to those who care about the last N packages, which are obviously fringe and I don't think we're there yet.
Description: PGP signature