Re: Preserving binary packages

[Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost>]

* On 2014-11-12 at 23:21 GMT, Jonathan Perkin wrote:

> * On 2014-11-12 at 21:13 GMT, David Holland wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 07:27:13AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> >  > 
> >  > "OBATA Akio" <obata%lins.jp@localhost> writes:
> >  > 
> >  > > I felt that "PKGSRC_KEEP_BIN_PKGS=yes" means "keep binary package already
> >  > > in ${PACKAGE} (prevent to overwrite)".
> >  > 
> >  > That's a good point.  Perhaps PKGSRC_IMPLICIT_CREATE_PKGS, since this is
> >  > really about turning "make install" into "make package-install" (for
> >  > every target where that makes sense).  But really people have to read
> >  > the text that goes with a variable anyway.
> > 
> > I would suggest PKGSRC_ACCUMULATE_PACKAGES=yes, since that's also what
> > it does and it's less open to misinterpretation.
> 
> I realise we are deep into bikeshed territory, but the reason I
> explicitly included "INSTALL" in my name suggestion is to highlight
> the fact that this only applies to the "install" target.
> 
> The problem with the two suggestions above is that, as a naive user,
> I'm going to be surprised to find packages still accumulating into
> $PACKAGES via depends even though I set PKGSRC_ACCUMULATE_PACKAGES=no.

Sorry, ignore this.  Something was bugging me that I may have been
wrong about the behaviour and indeed I was.  I've set
DEPENDS_TARGET=bin-install for a long time, and that defaults to
calling package-install if no binary exists, which will produce the
behaviour I've been talking about ('bmake install' will package all
dependencies into $PACKAGES except for the current package itself).

-- 
Jonathan Perkin  -  Joyent, Inc.  -  www.joyent.com