[Bug 193212] [stage] sysutils/bsdconfig

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193212

--- Comment #16 from C Hutchinson <portmaster at bsdforge.com> ---
(In reply to John Marino from comment #15)
> (In reply to Daniel Austin from comment #10)
> > a simple 'make stage-qa' will give you the above info, or build using
> > DEVELOPER=yes, or run it through poudriere.
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically: Read that line again and again until you unstand what he
> means.  We've mentioned "make stage-qa" 50 times and it seems that it's
> going over your head.

OH. I understand. FWIW here is the make.conf(5) for poudriere
DEVELOPER=yes
USE_PORTLINT=yes
USE_PACKAGE_DEPENDS=yes
BATCH=yes
WRKDIRPREFIX=/wrkdirs

Am I missing anything? Why is there no poudriere.conf man page?
I also can't find any "ports production" related material for
poudriere. Only package related information. I really feel
like the requirement for using poudriere, a bit premature.
Given that the use of make(1) install/deinstall/stage/* plist/
{...} will frequently pollute the system it's on, and, as
mentioned; the lack of pertinent info, where poudriere is
concerned. I would probably have been better off using a
dump(8) restore(8) scheme. To provide a fresh system to work
in after thoroughly testing each port. Or perhaps devise some
chroot(8) scheme. In short; I think I spent too much time
attempting to employ a development scheme, on something that
isn't [yet] readily adapted to, without a great deal of
experimentation, trial, and error. Don't get me wrong, I am all
too aware of that being a big part of general development. But
in this case [poudriere] isn't [yet] the most expedient approach.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

--Chris

P.S. I have no issue with your choice of Daniels patch,
over mine.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.