Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 10:18:33 -0800 From: George Hartzell <hartzell@alerce.com> To: Dan McGrath <danmcgrath.ca@gmail.com> Cc: "\@lbutlr" <kremels@kreme.com>, FreeBSD <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Starting with poudriere Message-ID: <24137.34681.804465.537681@alice.local> In-Reply-To: <CAK82gMF1O1EgBSW_hH_F-oPFOqx7iL-09ydi-myFUfhgyRYCFw@mail.gmail.com> References: <3743CEAE-BCC9-479E-8367-F3DA0E30496E@kreme.com> <4D118F32-E38F-4860-BBE8-4D9F259BF653@kreme.com> <CAK82gMF1O1EgBSW_hH_F-oPFOqx7iL-09ydi-myFUfhgyRYCFw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dan McGrath writes: > [...] I am not sure about repo priorities, or how you would deal > with conflicts with build options that pull in common ports. It is > something I have been meaning to look into, sorry! Perhaps someone else > here can give some advice? > One way to solve this is via "portshaker", which can layer a "thin" ports tree on top of the standard tree. Here's a [perhaps not entirely graceful, but It Works For Me] example where I layer a couple of ports onto the standard tree. https://github.com/hartzell/freebsd-ports I use the resulting tree for poudriere builds and populate jails with e.g. my LMS audio system. g.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24137.34681.804465.537681>