[Bug 193212] [stage] sysutils/bsdconfig

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

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

--- Comment #18 from John Marino <marino at FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #16)
> 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

Daniel gave you an excellent answer, but I think the above means you don't
understand.  What I was talking about has *NOTHING* to do with poudriere.  This
must be the source of confusion.  I finally gave up asking for poudriere logs
and I started asking for something that I knew you could provide.  Apparently
you thought it was related to poudriere.

> I really feel
> like the requirement for using poudriere, a bit premature.

A good "howto" is missing and I've asked a committer to write one in the
official documentation, but poudriere itself is not immature at all.


> 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. 


This sentence makes no sense to me.  It's obviously not true.


> 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.


I also have no idea what you are attempting.
You can literally have a working poudriere in 2 commands (1 = build jail, 2 =
install portree).

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