[CFT] UNIQUENAME patches

[Olli Hauer]

On 2012-06-16 22:36, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 16/06/2012 20:11, Olli Hauer wrote:
>> With one RPM spec file you can build foo, foo-docs, foo-devlibs and
>> foo-examples in one build and get 4 rpm's in one run.
>>
>> With the ports infrastructure we have to run several builds
>>  one for foo, one for foo-devlibs and maybe one for foo-docs if docs are
>>  generated.
> 
> Exactly -- that's precisely the functionality that sub-packages is going
> to introduce for the ports.  You do one build stage, and can then split
> up the results into several different packages.  One port, several pkgs.

sounds good

> 
> This will require the use of a staging directory, so you can package up
> a port without having to have it installed.  Staging is another new
> feature currently on the drawing board.
>
>> Also DEPENDENCY handling can become a real mess if a port needs
>> foo, foo-devlibs , bar, bar-devlibs ... to build.
> 
> Well, maybe.  For an end-user system where you install from pkgs (in
> this case, meaning pkgng -- that's the driver for most of these new
> features ) you only really need the base 'foo-0.99' package:
> dependencies will be pretty much equivalent to what there is now.
> Optionall you'll probably want foo--docs and foo--examples too, but you
> don't have to have them if installing a really stripped down system.
> There will probably be some sort of global setting to say automatically
> install docs and/or examples when you install the primary port.
> 
> When you're doing pkg building, then yes, you'ld need to install a bunch
> more pkgs -- they'd be BUILD_DEPENDS rather than RUN_DEPENDS -- but the
> ports infrastructure should take care of that.  Using a package builder
> like poudriere to maintain your own pkg repo should become standard
> procedure for supporting any reasonably sized installation, and that
> will gloss over all the boring detail of that for you.
> 

also sounds good to me,

at the moment I stopped testing pkgng since I use exclusive tinderbox
with several builds for prod machines and haven't had the time to
look deeper into the ./tb tbcleanup bug (tb head) which wiped twice a
view builds from two different build machines.

http://www.marcuscom.com/pipermail/tinderbox-list/2012-May/002601.html

--
Regards,
olli