Subject: Re: making 'make replace' safer
To: Greg Troxel <email@example.com>
From: Peter Schuller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/16/2006 23:10:10
> A big point is that the unsafe_depends flag should be integrated into
> pkgsrc, so the manual make replace causes the cleanup rebuilds to
> happen later when you run the tool. And, partial tool runs just do
> partial work, and one can just run again. With the metadata in
> a private tool area, things are harder than they need to be.
Some user POV thoughts here:
I think it is important to have an option to make the tool rebuild regardle=
of that flag, or to be able to specify the behavior of that flag.
Though trying to be conservative it is a useful method of preventing=20
unecessary re-compilation, in practice I have found with both pkgsrc and=20
=46reeBSD ports that things work much better when you just synch up=20
*everything*, regardless of specified depdency versions and whatnot, simply=
because allowing mixed-tree installations adds another variable that=20
effectively means your particular combination of software has never been=20
tested by anyone. With an up-to-date tree your environment is likely to mat=
relatively well that of the person updating and testing the packages.
=46rom a user perspective, I would often have no trouble taking the extra C=
usage hit if it meant decreasing the chances of trouble.
/ Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB
PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <email@example.com>'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
E-Mail: email@example.com Web: http://www.scode.org