[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Making chicken-install amenable to automation
From: |
Timothy Beyer |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Making chicken-install amenable to automation |
Date: |
Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:40:40 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (Sanjō) APEL/10.6 MULE XEmacs/21.4 (patch 21) (Educational Television) (i386--freebsd) |
At Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:53:47 +0200,
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Timothy Beyer wrote:
> > The non-versioned egg files makes adding chicken packages to FreeBSD ports
> > a challenge, similar to the situation you describe on NetBSD. (there was a
> > special mirror noted somewhere in the thread "Egg filename versioning" by
> > Leonardo Valeri Manera, but I don't think anything became of it) The only
> > real alternative that I can think of (which would be "versioned") would be
> > subversion checkouts during the fetch phase, but I seriously doubt that any
> > of the BSDs or any of the source-based Linux distributions can do such a
> > task in an elegant or standardized way.
>
> If you have a user-definable fetch function (or abuse another phase for that
> purpose) than you can do svn checkouts in your packages. This is easy to do
> and
> supported in Gentoo. For example, you can install all of KDE-4 head from svn
> via
> packages if that's what you want.
>
> Anyway, everything that Alaric explained also holds for Gentoo.
>
I'll retract that statement, I'm not as familiar with Gentoo as I am with the
BSDs. Apparently it isn't even true for FreeBSD. (though it's not really
encouraged by the community).
Tim