tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/mk/flavor/pkg

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 09:38:49PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
 > > That sounds like "no one should ever use make replace".  No, it isn't
 > > the correct behavior, if one accepts that make replace causing an unsafe
 > > state and pkg_rr doing a further make replace to straighten things out
 > > is reasonable.
 > Consider things like updating from one PHP or Perl version to another.
 > It is not "unsafe", it is downright broken. Fundamentally broken. This
 > is different from osabi as it will normally continue to work.

I think you got this paragraph mangled?

 > I am using "make replace". I do know when it is sane to use and when
 > not. What you are doing is "I don't care about breaking dependencies".

Anyway, your reasoning is spurious. There *is* no useful way to update
Perl besides pkg_rr or similar without setting up a whole extra pkgsrc
installation to do bulk builds in.

(Because every package with a perl script depends on perl, and this
includes a number of foundational packages like glib2, if you make
update you can easily spend the whole day compiling, even though all
that really needs to be rebuilt are the perl modules. Such lengths of
downtime are not acceptable in many/most contexts.)

No amount of DESTDIR handling or pointlessly littering one's pkgsrc
tree with leftover binary packages is going to change this basic

I know you think bulk builds are the answer to every problem; however,
most people don't want to go to that trouble. It seems like you're
working toward a world where everyone either has to use prebuilt
binary packages or set up their own pbulk apparatus, and I think that
would be a serious mistake.

David A. Holland

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index