On 16-02-19 02:16 PM, Brooks Davis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 07:13:04AM -0500, Derek (freebsd lists) wrote:
I can provide more detail, but would like to know if I'm doing
something horribly wrong first (i.e. trying to access the network
with gb as a make target, versus some other way to do this).
When you run "gb vendor", what stage does that happen in? IIRC
poudriere only configures network access during the fetch stage so you
must find a way to run it as part of the fetch process or capture and
emulate its result.
Thanks for the quick response - much appreciated.
Indeed, I was doing it in the post-extract stage, as there is
some patching that happens to the pulled-in sources from there,
and the vendor information is extracted from the tarball.
I see now, poudriere wants "no network", as you mention:
https://fossil.etoilebsd.net/poudriere/doc/trunk/doc/design.mkd
I wonder, with the rise of vendorizing tools, ala composer, gb,
npm, virtualenv (possibly?), etc, etc... - are the assumptions
about the build steps of ports still valid? i.e. - is there a
make vendor target somewhere between either extract, and patch,
or patch and build (that doesn't yet exist), where network access
is still useful? Rhetorical - I'm sure it's come up before (and
will do more digging to this effect).
Better yet - how do other ports deal with this? Would love to
hear from some maintainers who are happy with what they've done
to handle this - if anyone is available? Even just the port name
would be great.
My current plan is to shoehorn a custom fetch/extract/patch into
the port Makefile, based on Brooks' valued information, but it
doesn't feel great.
Thanks again - most helpful!
Derek
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
