tech-pkg archive

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

Re: long-broken packages (some are removal candidates)

David Holland <> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:06:11PM -0400, Amitai Schlair wrote:
>  > Can someone kindly recapitulate how our pkgsrc lives change if DESTDIR
>  > support becomes mandatory? The costs and benefits been explained
>  > before and I remember on balance finding them compelling.
> It's been the default for a while without the roof of the dungeon
> caving in. The only particularly noticeable problem at this point is
> that if you're doing source builds, ~useless binary packages
> accumulate in /usr/pkgsrc/packages until cleaned out by hand. This is
> more in the way of a hassle than a serious problem though. That and I
> guess builds are somewhat (but not all that much) slower and use more
> transient disk space.
> On the plus side you can (for most packages anyway) do everything but
> the final binary package install as non-root, plus the time window
> where things are missing during a live update is reduced (though not
> as much as it might be), the PLIST check becomes much more reliable,
> etc.

The previous is a rationale for why it's better to *use* DESTDIR mode,
and for why it should be default (which it is).

The question on the table, however, has almost nothing to do with that,
and is:

  What are the benefits to pkgsrc by making DESTDIR mode the only way to
  build packages?  Do those benefits outweigh the disadvantage of
  removing packges that are working (in non-DESTDIR mode) and in some

Attachment: pgpxgNr1cumNx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index