From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 10 17:28:59 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B83C1065672 for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 17:28:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glen.j.barber@gmail.com) Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (yw-out-2324.google.com [74.125.46.31]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 350928FC12 for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 17:28:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glen.j.barber@gmail.com) Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 9so1428244ywe.13 for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 10:28:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gS5mvxGvjPp8cZTK924C+jBgo4jjOxPaAd/Xh/tuXCc=; b=HPNQzMaFQsvJQ7/Qih7KbT2NXLsxx8yjao/CWFQph/4/ji8u+KA5M+kt/DJnP7TMnb q7+oA25LZeqft6Y72p4TRnIRdHrqmCKo4hTA9rBDxrO0N96jRnE7BOjaNOerD/oNBLPF t6joPqK911YmGynMu2fBekHtCpGDt6KjkGjII= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Bgy9678NejIwrYzNFvJoP4ACQEHLqwnb7H8jmEkMx/2X83BQ/Mg+rz+XII5sfCqJBs FG74lCXpy/SJgZZ8RBwb0AK7TSXM15UNJXs4AeNl8s6J1Kcu8vVQ9f4ZWy0t6qir+Tv8 VVJGTZ2vvNJX+73YZ/9eai7u0UzJVP9fiQA00= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.134.10 with SMTP id h10mr14148680and.148.1241975336812; Sun, 10 May 2009 10:08:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 13:08:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4ad871310905101008n73d26145h3d81914925aab965@mail.gmail.com> From: Glen Barber To: Marcin Wisnicki Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] NO_INSTALL in meta-ports considered harmful X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:28:59 -0000 On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Marcin Wisnicki wrote: > Some metaports (like print/cups) use NO_INSTALL. > > This will prevent such port from registering its installation in /var/db/ > pkg, which is different behaviour from installing it from prebuilt > package (where it registers just fine). > > IMHO not registering installation makes no sense and serves only to > confuse users (I've installed cups yet pkg_info claims I didn't!) and > causes unnecessary differences between software installed from ports vs > pkgs, which may lead to other unexpected problems (like missing > RUN_DEPENDS). > > Thus I advocate for more uniform handling of ports and packages by > treating it as a bug and replacing any such use of NO_INSTALL with empty > do-install target. Maybe even add a note to Porter's Handbook (though I > see no reference to NO_INSTALL there). > > If anyone has some insightfull comments why NO_INSTALL is not evil then > I'm all ears. > I'm not sure if this is the 'right answer', but NO_INSTALL allows the proper installation of numerous ports from one location (the meta-port). An example of this is the misc/instant-server port (though unmaintained, IIRC). If you remove the NO_INSTALL line from the Makefile, 'make' thinks misc/instant-server should be installed, rather than the collection of ports it is intended to install. Again, this is my interpretation of it. If I'm wrong, I gladly accept corrections to my thinking. :) -- Glen Barber