Subject: Re: Question about "make package"
To: Urban Boquist <email@example.com>
From: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/07/1998 08:50:58
On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Urban Boquist wrote:
> Why go through all the trouble of rebuilding everything if the
> +CONTENTS file would do?
> Or am I missing something?
I'm not sure, I thought so, but I can't remember myself; I've wished to
do this before, too.
Anyways: What you say seems to make sense to me, the problem is that our
current pkg_* tools just don't work that way. Rather, they were designed
(long time ago!) for some other use, in which it wasn't considered important
that you could do this. The way the whole pkg creating process works like
On "make install", pkg_create is called just to "register" the pkg, i.e. to
get the files like +CONTENTS right. No packing is - deliberately - done there
via some option to pkg_create (slave mode or so). Now if you type "make
package" this whole mess is repeated, just without the "don't create archive"
switch. (That's how far I understand things.)
Doing things the way they are, pkg_create just needs to know about one file
format (PLIST), without adding hooks for the +CONTENTS file as well. From a
logical viewpoint, "make package" should really rely on "make install" being
ran and _use_ that left (e.g. +CONTENTS).
Unformtunately, this will end up in a major rewrite of pkg_* which I
doubt anyone will touch. (The pkg-upgrading-issue would need to be dealt
with there, too...)
Hubert Feyrer <email@example.com>