A bit of discussion: Why don't we use a stage?
Johnny Lam
jlam at NetBSD.org
Tue Feb 1 15:45:48 PST 2005
Christopher JS Vance wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 08:37:25AM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
>
>> I use staging areas for many of my ports, but not all. I find them very
>> useful for ports that are mostly just bunches of files, for instance PHP
>> web applications. It's non-trivial to do this for all applications
>> though. Many applications really want to be be installed where you told
>> them they would be when you built them and they have hard coded paths
>> which prevent doing something else. This is certainly fixable, but I
>> seriously doubt it's worth the effort in many cases.
>
>
> OpenBSD seems to succeed, and can be told to use systrace to enforce
> that things get staged right. Of course, they have far fewer ports
> than FreeBSD.
Staging requires more effort on the part of the port maintainer to check
that all of those caveats that Brooks listed aren't tripped over. I
think FreeBSD Ports has been really successful because it *doesn't*
impose a lot of effort on the part of the port maintainer, and losing
this property is a bad thing.
Cheers,
-- Johnny Lam <jlam at NetBSD.org>
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list