From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 10 23:10:16 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02FCF1065672; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:10:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from monday.kientzle.com (kientzle.com [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E468FC18; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from root@localhost) by monday.kientzle.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) id o3ANAR0j005912; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:10:27 GMT (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from horton.x.kientzle.com (fw2.kientzle.com [10.123.1.2]) by kientzle.com with SMTP id 7b85d2kbtn9fwqdbh9q7g6npca; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:10:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4BC10553.1080705@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:10:11 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20100314 SeaMonkey/1.1.18 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Sam Fourman Jr." References: <49684.1270905510@pcbsd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Kris Moore , Julian Elischer , FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: ports and PBIs 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, 10 Apr 2010 23:10:16 -0000 Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: > I do have a question, assuming PBI's were merged officially into the > FreeBSD ports tree, > say I had PostgreSQL Server installed, via PBI. then I wanted to tweak > a setting so I: > > cd /usr/ports/databases/postgresql84-server/ && make deinstall clean > > would the PBI at this point be removed? or no because it is self contained? Basically, I believe the proposal here is to add: * make pbi to the ports build system to create a PBI from a port and possibly add * make installpbi * make deinstallpbi to install/deinstall just the resulting PBI. In particular, I don't think anyone is suggesting removing or changing any existing ports/package capability. People who are happy with the existing ports/package system could continue using it exactly as-is. This would imply that you might build Postgres and install it both as a port/package and simultaneously as a PBI. I'm not sure what that would mean, though. The big question, of course: what impact would the addition of "make pbi" have on existing port/package support efforts? Is this creating extra work for existing maintainers? Should it be optional (enabled per-port) or somehow default? I suspect the next step is for someone to put forward a proposed implementation of "make pbi" so those interested can start trying it out and see what the impacts are. (If only the GSoC proposal deadline hadn't already passed. ;-) Tim