Subject: Re: random comments from a pkg_comp newbie
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg Troxel <email@example.com>
Date: 07/08/2004 15:28:57
> > [x11-links]
> Indeed. I already removed several "automated installations" during the
> creation of the sandbox... and this can be removed as well.
sounds good. I'll update tomorrow :-)
> > MKCONF_VARS="UPDATE_TARGET DEPENDS_TARGET"
> > UPDATE_TARGET=package
> > DEPENDS_TARGET=package
We'll see if anyone objects...
> $ pkg_comp chroot your_command
Thanks, I just figured that out from reading the source to change it
to run a command instead. And then I noticed that the man page said
this, but I just didn't see it.
> I always use different binary repos for each configuration. Which are
> your ideas of "pros and cons"?
Well, it might make sense to share with the native config (in the
native chroot has same bits case). Then one can pkg_add -u
mismatching packages, etc. I tend to think (being new I'm not sure)
that such sharing is not a good idea. But it's the default - perhaps
the default should be to create a different binary repo for each
It's hard to know where there is space. It might make sense for
maketemplate to take an argument of a dir with lots of space, and
default to putting the binary repo and chroot area there. (I'm not of
the one-huge-/ persuasion, so all of this in /var doesn't fly.)