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>