Re: PKG_DEVELOPER=yes [Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/lang/zig]

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> writes:

> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 09:03:38AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>   B) i) bulk build using defaults 
>>      ii) bulk build according to some standard recommendations
>> 
>> I would argue that
>> 
>>   Bi should be equal to Bii.  Really, we should decide how bulk builds
>>   should be done (Bii) and set Bi to match
>
> I do not want to force such a policy. If I want to just build my normal
> set of local packages automated with a limited list, I shouldn't have to
> deal with new "errors", that's counter-productive.

I don't follow what you mean.

What I'm trying to say is that we as a group have a notion of "if you're
going to do a bulk build to make packages for people, here's how you
should configure it".   Today, that notion includes "you should set
PKG_DEVELOPER=yes".  All I am suggesting is that we should store the
agreed-upon notion of how standard bulk builds should be done in the
dafaults for all pkgsrc building.

Certainly if somebody wants to do a bulk build with different options,
for whatever  reasons they want, I don't object.   I was merely trying
to say that having one set of defaults in the code and another in group
wisdom that says "configure it this way" is unhelpful.


I think what you're objecting to is new checks getting put in the
defaults, before we know that they cause almost no failures.  I don't
think you object to the checks we've had in PKG_DEVELOPER for a long
time, since we pretty much know almost everything is ok with them.