From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 17 15:27:38 2007 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 282E016A420 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:27:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Received: from cauchy.math.missouri.edu (cauchy.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F9B13C447 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:27:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Received: from laptop2.gateway.2wire.net (cauchy.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by cauchy.math.missouri.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lBHFRI8w022811; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:27:19 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Message-ID: <47669565.3090404@math.missouri.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:27:33 -0600 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071213 SeaMonkey/1.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alejandro Pulver References: <4766650C.4020305@gmail.com> <47667E17.6030004@math.missouri.edu> <20071217114211.0c10d1c3@deimos.mars.bsd> In-Reply-To: <20071217114211.0c10d1c3@deimos.mars.bsd> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Aryeh M. Friedman" , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Request for Features: Ports Re-engineering 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: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:27:38 -0000 Alejandro Pulver wrote: > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:48:07 -0600 > Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >> One thing to look at is package building. I don't know how they build >> the official packages, but my guess is that they build each one from a >> clean system. But, for example, you have tons of little ports each >> depending on xorg-server, and to rebuild xorg-server for each little >> port must be a real burden. >> > > The packages are built in a clean system, which is a chroot environment > (i.e. everything in / from a base install) recreated each time a port > is built. Packages are used, they aren't rebuilt each time. See: > > /usr/ports/Tools/portbuild: the scripts running in pointyhat > http://tinderbox.marcuscom.com/: based and synchronized with the other, > but preferable for "user" builds (web interface, etc). Ah, yes, that makes a lot of sense. So no wonder people are bothered by the slow speeds of pkg_install. > Auto-detection is certainly avoidable. Some for example only enable > detection of MMX/SSE/etc instructions when not building in > pointyhat/tinderbox. IIRC ports should respect the users' choice, but > it's not easy with the current OPTIONS handling (some have knobs that > can be set to on/off/auto). > > I think this could be solved (for both current and possible new system) > like it's done with Python/wxWidgets/Apache/etc where there are port > preference/user preference/auto detection/system default, in a properly > fallback order. The problem is that there is no framework to do that > with OPTIONS for individual ports. I think that if a totally new system is created, it should be done in such a way that the port creators are forced to use a systematic approach for OPTIONS. This is currently done in many different ways. > The messages in pkg-message are packaged with the description/etc in > the generated package. However some ports just print text to the > screen, and that isn't recorded. It mostly depends on the port, but a > recording framework may be useful (i.e. echo to screen and pkg-message). My point was not that ports sometimes generates messages that packages don't. Rather it is that packages created using "make package" have messages whereas those created with "pkg_create" don't. (Openoffice is a good example of this.) Stephen