Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:57:33 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, "Christopher J. Ruwe" <cjr@cruwe.de> Subject: Re: poudriere behave-alike for Message-ID: <52931F0D.9060406@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20131125104740.10456aa6@dijkstra.cruwe.de> References: <20131125021559.1af33188@dijkstra.cruwe.de> <5292FF06.5080709@marino.st> <20131125104740.10456aa6@dijkstra.cruwe.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/25/2013 10:47, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: > While it would be well be possible to use Joyent's binaries, I am a > huge fan of the ability of ports-like systems to be tuned. If by tuned you mean "I want to have a non-default set of options", I think pbulk and distbb support that. > I am also a > huge fan of the poudriere approach of building everything in clean > jails, especially after being nastily bitten by implicit dependencies > (i.e., such deps as introduced by autoconf runs instead of being > declared in the port). pbulk and distbb also employ the clean jail approach. > I had the hopes that issue had come up sufficiently often that > somebody already did a poudriere port or build a functional clone or > however to call that. I do not really know whether I can port > poudriere capability- and capacity-wise. It's not trivial, but poudriere is just a bunch of shell scripts (right now). But add on a new implemention of "jail.sh" per platform, plus changing pkgng out for pkgsrc/pkgin and it's even a bigger job than the dragonfly branch was. But no, you should assume there is no poudriere clone available for pkgsrc at the moment. > > However, many thanks, your answers have helped me a lot in getting a > better picture. np, John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52931F0D.9060406>