From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 19 20:04:06 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A5F8CAA for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:04:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:60a2::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F9518A2 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:04:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lion.home.serebryakov.spb.ru (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:923f:1:396f:111a:890d:cdd5]) (Authenticated sender: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) by onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8048C4AC2D for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:04:03 +0400 (MSK) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:04:01 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov Organization: FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1731518990.20140120000401@serebryakov.spb.ru> To: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Is it Ok to write files into ${STAGEDIR}/${PREFIX} on "build" stage? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: lev@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:04:06 -0000 Hello, Ports. I'm writing port, which has complex, multi-stage build. In the middle ofg build some files should be installed into some directory with exactly same structure, as final result -- some ${TEMPROOT}/${PREFIX}. I could create special place for files, and in "do-install" simple do "tar -cf - -C ${TEMPROOT} . | tar -xf - -C ${STAGEDIR}" -- it will be correct install to stage dir for this port. But it looks strange -- to have two copies of all final files. Now I'm using ${STAGEDIR}/${PREFIX} instead of ${TEMPROOT}/${PREFIX} and it works nicely -- do-install: becomes no-op, everything is in-place and port doesn't spent another 250MiB of disk place. But, maybe, I don't something significant flaw in this approach and it is bad idea? -- // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov