tech-pkg archive

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

Re: Making it easier to get and use pkgsrc

On 11 December 2010 22:28, Aleksej Saushev <> wrote:
> Jean-Yves Migeon <> writes:
>> On 11.12.2010 21:14, David Brownlee wrote:
>>> - Make the initial pkgsrc tarball available via a shorter convenience
>>> URL such as
>> I agree. Although I would prefer to have a "pkgsrc-stable.tar.gz" (or
>> "pkgsrc-release.tar.gz" file (latest quarterly release), to avoid
>> confusion with pkgsrc-current.tar.gz (which should be accessible in the
>> same directory, IMHO)
> _Not_ "pkgsrc-release" since technically it isn't release,
> it is snapshot of a branch.

but pkgsrc-stable.tgz should be OK?

>> For example, build summaries are helpful
>> to know whether a package can get built successfully for a given OS +
>> architecture, where source pkgsrc cannot expose that easily.
>> Yes, this needs cooperation to build up binary repositories; nothing is
>> really free down there.
> This raises very important question. Who is going to do this?

Would it be possible to park the bulk building binary packages &
package summary discussions for now?
They are really important, but if we try to cover too many issues all
at the same time we're going to end up
running in (probably slightly antagonistic) circles. If we can focus
on the pkgsrc 'src' users first and come
back to the 'bin' users?

>>> - Default to DEPENDS_TARGET=package-install and
>> UPDATE_TARGET=package-install
>> I already hear someone complaining in the background :o
> It is much better to default to USE_DESTDIR=yes than to
> DEPENDS_TARGET=package-install

That shows my (pkgsrc) age. I've been using
DEPENDS_TARGET=package-install from way before USE_DESTDIR arrived :)
USE_DESTDIR pretty much mandates building binary packages, so when we
move to that this question becomes moot.
So.. this is now a "when can we move to USE_DESTDIR by default question :)

>>> - Switch from mk.conf to pkgsrc.conf
>> At first sight, I would say "yes", but I guess a .include "/etc/mk.conf"
>> directive would have to be added to pkgsrc.conf. mk.conf is shared by
>> NetBSD and pkgsrc bmake, so I am not quite sure that this will make
>> everyone happy.
> If you really want to perform cleanup, kick pkg* tools out of base system.
> It is really annoying that you have to watch that you use those that are
> under /usr/pkg because pkgsrc may have and may need newer tools installed
> (and pkgsrc is more up-to-date than NetBSD). It isn't hard to install
> pkgsrc bootstrap kit at sysinst time, and updating pkg* tools as part of
> pkgsrc is much easier than as part of base system.

I've been using pkgsrc on Linux and one thing I've found awkward is
regenerating a bootstrap. Is there an obvious way I've missed?
(and yes, I think longer term we should look to move the pkg tools out
of NetBSD, but again I'd like to park that for now as I
*know* *everyone* will come out of the woodwork to comment on the
colour of that bikeshed)

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index