Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 17:21:24 +0200 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= <uqs@spoerlein.net> To: Matt Juszczak <matt@atopia.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Make package-recursive problem Message-ID: <20090524152124.GA16591@acme.spoerlein.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905221212090.81580@pluto.atopia.net> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905221212090.81580@pluto.atopia.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 22.05.2009 at 12:17:44 -0400, Matt Juszczak wrote: > Hi all, > > I've started noticing more and more that packages I build are missing files > after they are rebuilt. I've tested this time and time again, and seem to > be able to show that about 10 ports (gettext, apache, net-snmp, some php > modules, etc.) are built correctly the first time, but when later > re-packaged, do not contain all the files they need. > [...] I have no clue as to what is causing this, but this is probably the reason why people use the tinderbox or roll their own system to build consistent packages. I have rolled my own, too. Consisting of a Makefile and a couple of scripts. It gathers all missing packages to build, uses a common make.conf and clean system for the compile, starts by building the leaf packages first. I never came around to using ZFS + clones for the package creation, which would have cut the time to setup the required base for each build significantly. Another approach had even the package dependency inside a Makefile, so rebuilding the gettext package would trigger all dependent packages to get rebuilt too (I haven't tackled the problem of *reinstalling* them on the target hosts, though) You see, everybody serious about using packages on a farm should create his own system :) It's not too hard anyway. Cheers, Ulrich Spörlein -- http://www.dubistterrorist.de/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090524152124.GA16591>