Bartek Palmowski [2008-05-23 09:07]: > Johannes Winkelmann wrote: > />/So you'd end up with a package you can't reproduce after the 'work' is > >removed, because you didn't make patches from your changes. Seems like a > >major step back, and nothing that should be actively encouraged. > > Pkgfile is the only "interface" to interact with building process, > whats the point of doing all changes to Pkgfile then rebuild, > do changes again, then rebuild again (note that source package gets > extracted every time that happens. Lets look at the situation when > maintainer 'A' tries to build some port, he needs to perform some "surgery" > on the Makefile, to do that in usual method he needs to think of a sed lines > or make a patch, put in on the Pkgfile, and then perform build only to notice > that he made i.e stupid mistake. With the pkgmk -b feature he could do it > quikly, > and by _memorizing_ (im talking about minor changes) apply those modifications > to Pkgfile, which would speed port developing process and make it easier.
I wonder whether we can protect ourselves from releasing a port that only worked because we messed with the srcdir directly :) maybe we could make pkgmk _not_ create the final package if -b is used, so you just get to see whether the build succeeded, but you'll only get a package if you do _not_ use -b. Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
pgpAdA148ybJp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ crux-devel mailing list crux-devel@lists.crux.nu http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux-devel
