Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:24:04 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Get ports tree of the current pkgng repository Message-ID: <502D56E4.2080705@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208162138370.7693@priv.s-tlk.org> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208162138370.7693@priv.s-tlk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig8FC7886DD4A652E2CFD96DD1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 16/08/2012 20:56, Michael Schnell wrote: > Hi, > I don't know if this came up already, but not as far as I know. So, I > was thinking it would be nice to add a mechanism to pkgng, which enable= s > the user to get the ports tree corresponding to the current repository.= >=20 > At least I've the problem that I really like the idea of the pkgng > system, but I need a few custom build packages. For instance rawtherape= e > is not working for me with OpenMP, so I have to disable it to get it > working, or I made some patches for openbox, which of course then needs= > to be compiled. In order to get not in conflict with a more recent > ports tree the exact version of the repository build would be nice. >=20 > At the moment I can think of two ways to implement it. The easiest way > would be to add the ports tree as a packages into the repository. A mor= e > complicated thing is to add a mechanism to portsnap synchronised with > the pkgng system to direct fetch it, or at least a revision number of > the current repo, so you can check it out of the subversion. >=20 > How do you guys feel about this? Could you open an issue on github please? [*] https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng/issues?state=3Dopen Adding a package with a complete ports tree is an ... interesting ... idea. Maybe doable --- but it would be a huge package. Adding some metadata to the repo catalogue to show eg. the SVN revision number of the ports tree used to generate the packages would be a pretty reasonable approach. However, one of the development aims for pkgng is to make it much easier for people to maintain their own packages of the particular software that is important to them, but be able to use a regular public repository for pretty much anything else. That implies being able to handle a mix of packages compiled from different ports trees much better than is the case at the moment. If we get that right, keeping ports trees in precise synch as you describe shouldn't be any great issue. Cheers, Matthew [*] A pull request with patches would be even better, but we're glad of any good ideas. --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey --------------enig8FC7886DD4A652E2CFD96DD1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlAtVusACgkQ8Mjk52CukIzoYACfWXwnsHcVnKVuuOC4KsBPIvk0 QC4An2XnylNWadvzcTHffsevaIDocBPz =RshU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig8FC7886DD4A652E2CFD96DD1--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?502D56E4.2080705>