[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       crux
Subject:    Re: Pkgfile.local sucks(?)
From:       Florian Weber <Florian.Weber () pfaffenhofen ! de>
Date:       2002-06-10 22:17:53
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 10 June 2002 23:34, Markus Ackermann wrote:
> On Mon 10.06.2002, 23:21:49 +0200, Per Liden said in public:
> >Keep your ports in some directory, say ~/ports/.
>
> or /usr/local/ports... isn't that what "local" is all about?

Well .. yes. But I still agree with Per.
IMVHO, /usr/ports is a very unique structure (compared to, say, 
"..../bin/....") and should be kept in one place.

> >Comments?

Per: do you think you can come up with a way to make the "local" tree 
(semi-)automatically override the original tree(s)? Perhaps with an option to 
pkgmk, if you don't like magic? Otherwise a recursive pkgmk could wreak havoc 
on a system.

Perhaps (as said before) duplicate "/usr/ports/XXXX" in 
"/usr/ports/local/XXXX", with XXXX={base,opt,contrib}

To give an elaborate example:
/usr/ports
  base/
  opt/
  contrib/
  local/
       base/
       opt/
       contrib/
       my-very-new-port/
       yet-another-port/
       my-kde/
           kdelibs/
           kdebase/
       
Florian
who thinks this local tree is a great idea

-- 
PGP key ID: 1F198651

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]