From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 26 13:19:02 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D204106566B for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:19:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14A08FC12 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:19:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3TOO-00085k-MH for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:19:00 +0100 Received: from static-78-8-147-77.ssp.dialog.net.pl ([78.8.147.77]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:19:00 +0100 Received: from mwisnicki+freebsd by static-78-8-147-77.ssp.dialog.net.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:19:00 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: Marcin Wisnicki Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:18:49 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <20110325101111.GA36840@azathoth.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: static-78-8-147-77.ssp.dialog.net.pl User-Agent: Pan/0.134 (Wait for Me; Unknown) Subject: Re: [ECFT] pkgng 0.1-alpha1: a replacement for pkg_install X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:19:02 -0000 On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:22:50 +0000, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > This can still be discussed but I don't really like the idea that users > may alter packages an installation/extraction time, that would lead to > lots of potential buggy installation and report. That's why list of alterations have to be recorded and relevant tools would mark such packages appropriately. Using filters would be considered unsupported (unless maintainer of particular port/package says otherwise). It's no different than doing unsupported things right now, just giving user more tools. Besides, examples mentioned by me like removing docs and unused translations are rather safe and save significant amount of disk space. > If user aren't happy > with the packaging, they can poke the maintainer, send PR, patch etc. That's not possible unless user is willing to build packages himself. Actually I would rather not have build time options for things that can just as well be performed during installation. Hacking makefiles to implement NOPORTDOCS is quite more complicated than setting a glob pattern. There is also one very important use case I didn't mention before. Such filters could serve as a hooking point for configuration management system. It makes it possible to capture config files as they are installed and perform backups, merges, check-in to vcs etc. > regards, > Bapt > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, > send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"