Re: Preserving binary packages

["OBATA Akio" <obata%lins.jp@localhost>]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 03:53:47 +0900, Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost> wrote:

> In May 2013, the default of preserving binary packages at package install
> time was changed, from yes to no.  The change was made to stop
> overwriting existing binary packages (although the "replace" example
> given surprises me, as the existing binary package is placed in the
> WRKDIR, not in the packages dir).
>
> 	PatchSet 295
> 	Date: 2013/05/22 23:18:56
> 	Author: obache
> 	Branch: HEAD
> 	Tag: pkgsrc-2013Q3-base
> 	Log:
> 	prevent to generate binary package in ${PACKAGES} from the side effect of
> 	`install' with USE_DESTDIR=yes.
> 	This changes prevent to unwanted overwite of existing binary packages with
> 	test installation (`stage-install', `replace' & `undo-replace', and so on).
>
> 	To do both `install' and `package', you can still use `package-install' target,
> 	same as USE_DESTDIR=no.
>
> 	Members:
> 		bsd.install.mk:1.13->1.14
> 		replace.mk:1.14->1.15
>
> A number of times since then, I've wanted to re-use a binary package,
> but found it extremely difficult to do when it's not preserved any
> more.  I've heard others express similar feelings, and finding out how
> to change this is not easy -- you need to use the package-install
> target -- and the docs continue to reflect the old behavior prior to
> this change.

If you really want to re-use a binary package, you can use
"make bin-install" instead of "make package-install".
* always use binary packages for installation even on dependency if available.
* binary packages will be created even on dependency if not available.

> Unfortunately, my muscle memory does not remember this easily.  I've
> become used, over the years to just typing "make install".  I'd really
> prefer it if we could use a definition in mk.conf to drive the
> decision to preserve binary packages or not.  Using a definition means
> that I can set it once in mk.conf, and have it DTRT.  It would prevent
> me trying desperately to stop "make install" after I've executed it,
> only to delete it, and type "make package-install".  Similarily for
> pre-requisite packages, which are built for me - I would not have to go
> back and re-make them.
>
> So I've come up with the attached diff which does exactly this. I'm
> not wedded to the names; however, I'm convinced that a definition would
> benefit a number of us.
>
> Does anyone have any objections to this approach?

Your approach is not "keeping binary packages", but "always create binary packages".
So you should use such naming, say "PKG_CREATE_BIN_PKGS=yes" instead of
"PKGSRC_KEEP_BIN_PKGS=no".

--
OBATA Akio / obata%lins.jp@localhost