Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:15:37 -0700
From:      Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com>
To:        Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net>
Cc:        =?UTF-8?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>
Subject:   Re: Allow user install
Message-ID:  <CAOgwaMse9Qru9nxrxKhYKAospXLtk3_XN9hT%2B=18Fs7=Fb%2Bx3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FE9DCCE.1060104@vangyzen.net>
References:  <20120626063017.D05DA58081@chaos.jnpr.net> <86wr2uwdgf.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20120626153335.3215258081@chaos.jnpr.net> <4FE9DCCE.1060104@vangyzen.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> wrote:

> On 06/26/2012 10:33, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:54:24 +0200, =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=**B8rgrav?=
>> writes
>> :
>>
>>> I've been thinking for a while that some bor^H^H^Henterprising soul
>>> should hack install(1) so that if a specific environment variable is
>>> set, it writes the file to a tarball instead of writing it to disk.
>>>
>>
>> That's an interesting twist.
>> But rather than do violence to the meaning of "install" it might be
>> better to skip it completely.
>>
>> The Junos build has for many years produced install images without
>> "installing" anything.   We are working on a variant of that approach
>> for freebsd, which should prove useful.
>>
>> This patch is unrelated to that btw, but provides a intermediate
>> improvement
>> which I thought might be useful in an of itself.
>>
>> Teaching makefiles to tell tools what you actually want is better than
>> hacking tools to ignore what you told them to do ;-)
>>
>
> Agreed, on all points.  (Not that my opinion carries much weight.  I'm
> just an interested user.)
>
> Perhaps packages--such as a tarball or mfsroot--would be built from
> targets in src/release/Makefile.
>
>  (BTW, I find INSTALL_OWN confusing - how about UNPRIVILEGED_INSTALL or
>>> USER_INSTALL?)
>>>
>>
>> I always say, naming stuff is hard ;-)
>> Which is half the reason for posting the patch - to get feedback on the
>> name.
>>
>
> Indeed.  Names are the handles by which we grasp the world, and
> everybody's hand is unique.
>
> INSTALL_OWN is a bit cumbersome.  Its name also doesn't cover other
> privileged attributes, such as the schg flag.
>
> I like UNPRIVILEGED_INSTALL or USER_INSTALL.  The user can set those to
> tell the build system what he/she wants.  The build system can then set the
> other internal variables to make that happen.  Those internal variables can
> change over time, but the user will still get the right behavior.
>
> The ports system uses INSTALL_AS_USER; the precedent is worth considering.
>
> Eric
> ______________________________**_________________
> freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch<http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>;
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@**freebsd.org<freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org>
> "
>


My vote is as follows
where (1) : Most wanted
          (4) : Least wanted :

(1) INSTALL_AS_USER
(2) USER_INSTALL
(3) UNPRIVILEGED_INSTALL
(4) INSTALL_OWN


Another name may be used for its context : INSTALL_AS_ROOT

When names are sorted :

 INSTALL_AS_ROOT
 INSTALL_AS_USER

they will come very near to each other .


Thank you very much .

Mehmet Erol Sanliturk



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOgwaMse9Qru9nxrxKhYKAospXLtk3_XN9hT%2B=18Fs7=Fb%2Bx3Q>