Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:07:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Schnell <s-tlk@s-tlk.org> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Get ports tree of the current pkgng repository Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208162357530.7693@priv.s-tlk.org> In-Reply-To: <502D56E4.2080705@FreeBSD.org> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208162138370.7693@priv.s-tlk.org> <502D56E4.2080705@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Matthew Seaman wrote: > 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 enables >> the user to get the ports tree corresponding to the current repository. >> >> 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 rawtherapee >> 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. >> >> 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 more >> 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. >> >> How do you guys feel about this? > > Could you open an issue on github please? [*] > > https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng/issues?state=open Okay done. Unfortunately I don't have a test system yet, then I would have tried to test some of the ideas. At the moment I'm just evaluating pkg. > 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. I don't think it will be so large, when you look at the size of the compressed tar balls coming with portsnap. ;-) Something around 65 MiB if I remember correctly? > 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. That was my idea. Otherwise I have to guess the revision, or check out the ports tree quickly after an upgrade of the packages and still I had some mismatch there. Greetings Michael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1208162357530.7693>