Subject: Re: Changes to package system (was: Eval: New package qt3-3.0.1)
To: D'Arcy J.M. Cain <>
From: Alistair Crooks <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 01/10/2002 11:59:22
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 05:22:24AM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> Thus spake Frederick Bruckman
> > By the way, the one thing that bugs me the most about multiple
> > packages from one monster distfile, is that usually the whole distfile
> > gets extracted. For an "average" machine, that really raises the bar.
> > I wish more of those breakout packages would set ${EXTRACT_ELEMENTS}
> > to just get the parts they need.
> That could be tricky to maintain.  What I was wondering was how hard would
> it be to create a common extract place.  That way you can at least extract
> it once when building a number of the packages at the same time.
> While we are talking about changes we would like I was also wondering
> if we could change the update sequence from delete=>build=>install to
> build=>delete=>install.  It's bad enough that the package is gone
> while doing a long build but even worse is when the build fails for
> some reason and you are left with no package and not even a way to go
> back a version without a lot of pain.
> -- 
> D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
>                |  and a sheep voting on
> +1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

I think that the old package should be kept off to one side as a
binary package. i.e. the sequence should be tarup=>build=>delete=>install.
That provides you with a recovery path in the case of build failure
in the new package. Another approach is to do "make build && make update".