Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 21:42:15 +0000 From: Lorenzo Salvadore <phascolarctos@protonmail.ch> To: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GSoC: Separation of Ports Build Process from Local Installation Message-ID: <yFXyiVDqfZ83HpkeT7WDxfjtzxPUBQwjKlXopILwgblYTTRUy4cVP2suFQ1efA5UMHBBj2mbhzLmpX9KnjIFQTBjYeXbzXO6wkPpGhIN_V8=@protonmail.ch> In-Reply-To: <f2a72f68-0c78-6626-9f31-420be38800d5@FreeBSD.org> References: <5cdb1c0b-a2dd-c754-daa3-187330ad9ad6@gmail.com> <201905290328.x4T3Sfep018873@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <20190529095653.GN18665@straylight.m.ringlet.net> <f2a72f68-0c78-6626-9f31-420be38800d5@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 29/05/2019 10:56, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>
> > Hmm, I could be wrong, but isn't ${LOCALBASE} supposed to be where
> > ports find stuffduring the build, and ${PREFIX} where they
> > install the built files? Of course, I haven't actually touched
> > a FreeBSD ports build in years, so I might very likely be wrong.
> > I also seem to remember a series of test port builds done a long
> > time ago with a different value for LOCALBASE, specifically to catch
> > ports that do not honor the policy in this regard.
>
> No, you are correct. The LOCALBASE setting is where the ports will look
> for build dependencies. However, the problem here is there is no
> guarrantee that the LOCALBASE value will not somehow be compiled into a
> resulting package (eg. as RPATH for dynamically loading a shlib) so
> would also be needed for runtime dependencies.
Indeed, I maintain a port where LOCALBASE is a value that appears in the
resulting package's files (not as RPATH): math/maxima. See its Makefile at
line 65.
> Being able to build with a custom value of LOCALBASE and then install
> and run the resulting package onto a system using different value for
> PREFIX would be an interesting piece of work. The applicability would
> be people that custom build their own ports, but who are for some reason
> unable or unwilling to set up some sort of clean-build environment.
> This does strike me as an awful lot of work to solve a perceived problem
> where we do already have some pretty good solutions in place, but not to
> everybodies' taste.
Here again I can give an example of someone who does not want any
clean-build environment: myself. My machine is pretty old, cpu is slow,
ram is low and poudriere gets annoying on it: it needs to install and deins=
tall
plenty of dependencies for each single new package it builds. My solution
at the moment is using ports keeping all the build depenencies always insta=
lled.
However, if I understood the project correctly, I fear it would not offer a
useful alternative in my case.
Lorenzo Salvadore.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?yFXyiVDqfZ83HpkeT7WDxfjtzxPUBQwjKlXopILwgblYTTRUy4cVP2suFQ1efA5UMHBBj2mbhzLmpX9KnjIFQTBjYeXbzXO6wkPpGhIN_V8=>