[RFC] NO_INSTALL in meta-ports considered harmful
wxs at FreeBSD.org
Mon May 11 13:17:02 UTC 2009
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 09:28:34PM +0000, Marcin Wisnicki wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 15:22:04 -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Marcin Wisnicki
> > <mwisnicki+freebsd at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> They will be installed since they are run dependencies.
> >>From what I can tell (from several metaports) -- they, themselves, are
> > not installed. The ports defined in the metaport are installed.
> That's the point. The metaports should be installed as well (reasons given
> in my original mail).
> > There is no source code for, using your example, CUPS. CUPS (in the
> > FreeBSD ports tree) is, for lack of a better explanation, a pointer to
> > which specific ports you need to have in order to get a fully operation
> > CUPS system running. Looking at the Makefile for print/cups  you can
> > see the dependencies and that CUPS is not actually built (which in
> > definition is what makes this a metaport).
> I know this.
> The proper way to make a metaport is to:
> 1. use only RUN_DEPENDS
> 2. set NO_BUILD
> 3. do *NOT* set NO_INSTALL
> 4. provide empty do-install target
> There are several metaports that get it right, like for example x11/gnome2:
Based upon your description I think this is a bug in the CUPS port. I'd
suggest you file a PR so that it can be tracked and (hopefully)
More information about the freebsd-ports