Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost> writes:
> I actually prefer the current behaviour. I do a lot of development on
> packages where $PACKAGES is set to the same location as the bulk
> builds, and I do not want to overwrite a bulk build package when
> building manually. Yes, I could switch $PACKAGES or so to avoid this
> or use some non-standard target, but I like the nomenclature of
> 'install' to install and 'package' to package - it makes more sense to
> me.
I see your point, and it seems reasonable. But it also seems that
building by hand is different than bulk (even in the same source tree)
and that pointing PACKAGES (and presumably WRKDIR :-) to someplace else
would make that separation work and seem natural. I suppose that you
might want dependencies to be satisfied from your bulk packages.
It sounds like as long as you can easily configure the "targets without
package in the name don't leave a package in ${PACKAGES}" behavior, you
don't mind, though.
Attachment:
pgpyjibsKviN1.pgp
Description: PGP signature