Re: Preserving binary packages

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost> writes:

> * On 2014-11-10 at 01:46 GMT, Alistair Crooks wrote:
>
>> Am I missing something in the bigger picture, though?  Why should we
>> not preserve/create binary packages?  The advent of binary package
>> managers require a package as a basic unit of transfer, and it makes
>> much sense to me to build binary packages all the time.
>
> 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.

Set PACKAGES in bulk build tools.


-- 
HE CE3OH...