David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> 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 use?
Description: PGP signature