On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 15:45, Mark Murray wrote: > Paul Richards writes: > > I've got a prototype setup that packages the base tree. It turned out to > > be very simple. It needs a lot more polishing and testing but it looks > > like this can definitely be made to work with just some tidying up and > > re-arranging of our existing make files. I've succesfully created > > packages of /sbin by adding the following to /usr/src/sbin/Makefile > > > > -- > > PORTNAME= FreeBSD-sbin > > PORTVERSION= 1.0 > > COMMENT=sbin > > CATEGORIES=misc > > -- > > ... etc. > > This is excellent! > > However, I suspect that a marginally better place to use these would be > in the "make distribute" target that "make release" uses. This way, the > files are already separated out into directory structures, and it may be > easier to build complex pkg-plist's with find(1). ALSO, it may be easier > to make more fine-grained packages (DISTRIBUTION=foo) with this.
I looked into this originally so that I could use the standard BSD make includes for a project in work but I needed some way to have "install" wrappered so that any files installed by my project were registered in a package. Therefore, I wouldn't want it restricted to just FreeBSD release scripts since I want to be able to use it outside of the FreeBSD tree. I was thinking of adding an option to install so it registers the file in a plist rather than actually doing the install. A seperate "make plist" target could then be used as a helper target to automate the generation of plists. If we want to get even more resilient, we could pass a plist file to install and have install abort if the file to install is missing from the plist e.g. return an "out of date package" error or something. Paul. _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
