Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 10:19:10 -0700 From: Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com> To: Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: poudriere(8) short circuits my ability to build packages Message-ID: <149828c3135e4de71c4869c6ceed93c6@bsdforge.com> In-Reply-To: <Zg7QUFL4YyE5gauV@fc.opsec.eu> References: <78550638a3787fd0897093fdad463a00@bsdforge.com> <qv7yz37n2hb5qqua6nqgcplllrzd2opsrofdbu2rok5uheisd7@phexm6l6gyj3> <7aba89d38b4d0e84f8ba941452215f73@bsdforge.com> <Zg7QUFL4YyE5gauV@fc.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2024-04-04 09:07, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >> > hint using jail is not it, poudriere >> > leverages jails, but we could do without jail while providing the same >> > value. >> Not if it imposes itself. > > It does not. The complexity of keeping such a huge number of > interdepend ports/packages building and running is not imposed > by poudriere, it's imposed by the general development pace. > > Having tools like poudriere helps enormously to keep things > together. > >> If I've misunderstood the message reported to me by pkg(8) in my attempt >> to create a package, and it *doesn't* prevent me from creating a >> package in my chosen environment. > > It does not prevent you, but the port (not pkg) message is written > in relation to poudriere. So yes, I think you misunderstood the > message. To be fair, the topic is complicated and formulating > a message that can not be misunderstood is non-trivial. Indeed, and I apologize for misinterpreting the message. If it were me, I'd have probably omitted the "The limit imposed by poudriere(8)" part and maybe just included it in a poudriere(8) message. But that's just me, and the ports framework doesn't revolve around me. ;) Thanks for taking the time to help me here, Kurt. Much obliged! :) -- --Chris Hutchinson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?149828c3135e4de71c4869c6ceed93c6>