On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 02:19:04PM -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > this is not a tool for the masses. > Even if it WERE in base and there were a man page for it, I do not > believe the developers would be interested in having people look at > the FAQ and say, "oooo...cool, I should do this!" > > Shoot...the people who started this and several other identical > threads recently aren't able to use a search engine or look in the > last week or two's messages to misc@ to figure this out...you want > them to use the distributed package builder?
Depends what we are talking about. If they're hell-bent about building some packages, dpb *is* the shitz for any kind of "large" packages build. It's what's now used for most (I hope ALL) official builds. In the OpenBSD tradition, I tried really hard to make it very much foolproof: on a virgin machine with a checkout ports tree (that matches your binary), if you run "dpb", you will eventually end up with all binary packages normally built by the ports tree. That's right, doesn't need no stinking options, just time (and disk space). In my opinion, it's not more complicated than building ports by hand. It's a bit like a power-saw vs a normal hand-saw. Both will do what you want (cut things). The power-saw will be ways more efficient at it. Both can cut your hands if you're careless. ;-) (then again, dpb has a shitloadz of options, but then it also work on clusters). I did actually notice I forgot to update ports(7) to remove all older text about "BULK PACKAGE BUILDING" with the old clunky method, instead of pointing people directly towards dpb...
