A bit of discussion: Why don't we use a stage?

[Florent Thoumie]

Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1. February 2005 01:26, Danny Pansters wrote:
>
>
>>I wonder, are there pressing reasons not to do that (apart from marginally
>>more space needed)?
>
>
> Whether it's so marginal or not depends on the port I'd say. Especially if
> this stage were to be in an appropriate place (like /tmp), this will be
> problematic.
>
>
>>Perhaps this is a stupid or bikeshed question but I've
>>wondered about this several times. Do I imagine a bigger gain than there
>>would be in reality?
>
>
> I think so. When working on creating or changing a port, you can always
> install stuff into a custom PREFIX, then go digging in there for potential
> issues - and apply changes you'd think would be useful to the build system of
> the port itself (and it's really easy enough to do that - at least I never
> wished for a staging area to mess around in).
>
> However - the biggest reason there isn't a staging area is that there is none.
> It should be pretty straightforward to implement this by setting PREFIX, if
> you feel like hacking bsd.port.mk and submitting a PR with the results, feel
> free to go ahead.

	I've wondered sometimes about this idea too, the main interest of having this
	will be for packing list creation. I've used that for ports/49955.

	You shouldn't need extra space if you replace 'install' with 'ln -s' when
	installing in the fake PREFIX.

--
Florent Thoumie
flz at xbsd.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20050201/de2807fe/signature.bin