Re: Preserving binary packages

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

* 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.

>  > I think we've more or less reached the conclusion that a lot of people
>  > like agc's suggestion, and the ones that don't particularly care for it
>  > agree that the presence of the option won't distress them.
> 
> Yes.

Right, someone just pick a suitable name and gopher it.

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