Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:46:07 -0500 From: Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org> To: Christopher JS Vance <freebsd@nu.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: A bit of discussion: Why don't we use a stage? Message-ID: <420014BF.3050702@NetBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20050201223104.GB725@nu.org> References: <200502010126.59366.danny@ricin.com> <20050201163725.GA22338@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050201223104.GB725@nu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christopher JS Vance wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 08:37:25AM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote: > >> I use staging areas for many of my ports, but not all. I find them very >> useful for ports that are mostly just bunches of files, for instance PHP >> web applications. It's non-trivial to do this for all applications >> though. Many applications really want to be be installed where you told >> them they would be when you built them and they have hard coded paths >> which prevent doing something else. This is certainly fixable, but I >> seriously doubt it's worth the effort in many cases. > > > OpenBSD seems to succeed, and can be told to use systrace to enforce > that things get staged right. Of course, they have far fewer ports > than FreeBSD. Staging requires more effort on the part of the port maintainer to check that all of those caveats that Brooks listed aren't tripped over. I think FreeBSD Ports has been really successful because it *doesn't* impose a lot of effort on the part of the port maintainer, and losing this property is a bad thing. Cheers, -- Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?420014BF.3050702>