On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Alistair Crooks wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 05:22:24AM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> >
> > 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.

I don't care for the "update" target at all -- the whole thing was not
very well thought out. For instance, keeping state in directories
scattered throughout the work space is bizarre; progress should rather
have been maintained in ${PKG_DBDIR}.

> 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".

I tend to prefer "pkg_delete -r" at the bottom, and "make package" at
the top. That leaves you with proper binary packages that you can
share with other hosts.

Frederick