Fakeroot for ports new round

[jhell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Links are useful & save time.
http://bit.ly/cNAYLd

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:29, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
In Message-Id: <AANLkTimRywhMyuWu_58LHDwZsIGH7NgpkIJJ66f7tlY- at mail.gmail.com>

> Hi all,
>
> I just send a new fakeroot patch for the ports (uptodate).
> Patch can be found here : ports/133815
> the patch as begun as a port of the fakeroot implementation from
> midnightbsd ports system.
>
> What it does : basically it install everything in a fakeroot
> repository creates a package respecting the plist and only then
> installs it. currently adding USE_FAKE=yes in make.conf activates the
> feature.
>
> Some ports needs to be cleaned up to be able to works for example perl
> fails when creating the manpage for perl-after-upgrade.1. But most of
> them should just work
>
> Benefits :
> - currently porters have to do the *-install stuff twice one for the
> ports, one for the package.
> - some ports already uses fakes dir it would simplify them (firefox)
> - no more hacks to respects NOPORTSDOC NOPORTSDATA etc.
> - better QA : bad plist would be easily detected, no more crufts for end users
> - more focus on packages for QA for examples we could write tools to
> analyse them to be sure it respects the rules
> - better security : we could imagine to not allow ports to access
> anything that isn't in $WRKDIR like gentoo's sanbox or debian's
> fakeroot.
>
> disavantages:
> - overhead files a installed once of the fakeroot then a package is
> created and then installed.
> the could be reduced by adding the ability to pkg_add to copy files
> from a fakeroot respecting a plist like pkg_create does without
> creating the packages (for people who doesn't want packages)
> I think lot's of work can be done there to reduce the overhead.
>
> for a recall every modern packages system uses a fakeroot like
> features : openbsd's ports, pkgsrc, rpmbuilding, debian packaging
>
> with this feature I sure porters would benefit cleaner Makefiles and
> user would benefit better quality packages/ports.
>
> I need help finishing the patch because I just can't test everything.
> I also would like to get a clear statement on whether or should
> continue working on this (ie is there a chance that this could be
> accepted).
>
> regards,
> Bapt
>




- -- 

  jhell

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMQjN7AAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+DlQH/3CHUb+k2Xty1MFt9h/Yyeki
SRxrPeTDhHJl90sF4EPmBV1TD5+S2wI1VVZtVQLtbTLrbm2L8f6H1Rz1wN40vxnq
qO8OqlaMmXjnh1zF6zISG6vBI/x7ohhqJHP+rzod/xt8894UAFMkfK2s7z36woNY
IsVZb1R4TLJQ0+q9tFyl3vA02Dq7HVU+PkaTOj9Us/fIsRh+e91ux7XlFjMZRCO7
cIIbQbhVtNdYQOeP0awr8XaF8p6cpOiQ97hcJ22TVJnT6frYhh4WtXbVrK5oGDky
G4aCmqnnONkykTJ6cjGKGeZukZJWaqsJpFk0rSMdI9T6FXdzOsCRpzyJPHnW24M=
=h7u3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----