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

List:       crux
Subject:    Re: Pkgfile.local sucks(?)
From:       Colin Tree <coltree () tpg ! com ! au>
Date:       2002-06-13 5:42:07
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi,
It seems that I started using /usr/ports/local
for developing my new ports or modifying existing ports
a while before it was discussed. One problem I'm running 
into is the rest of the tree updates leaving my local 
ports as older versions. Another is some dependencies
are older than existing packages, ie Evolution, requiring
me to have 2 versions of a prog installed over each other
e.g.db3 & db4 are now both needed on my system.

It's starting to get hairy, I'm understanding why Debian
is so slow and careful releasing.

On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 08:17, Florian Weber wrote:
> 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
> 
-- 


Cheers,


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