Re: pkgsrc build server

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Mayuresh <mayuresh%acm.org@localhost> writes:

> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 09:49:32PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> >> I would say: don't ever use make update.
>> > Why does something exist that isn't to be used `ever'?
>> You seeme to have conflated "I would say" and "everyone woudl say".
>
> It's worthwhile to explain why even you'd say and my question is merely a
> hint to provoke an insightful answer.

My usage is often on computers that I expect to work.  Having a large
number of missing packages is bad, and I have found that there is no
easy way to continue a failed make update and get back to things.

>> I think the notion that replace is risky and update is not is confused.
>
> Depends on how you define the risk.

indeed.

> replace can lead to packages that are alive (installed) but inconsistent
> with each other [would exist but won't possibly run]

true, but it's remarkably rare.  I basically on do pkg_rr, which when it
completes resolves the inconsistencies.

> update can lead to packages getting wiped out *if* there are build errors.
>
> To me there is no value in having a package installed but not functioning
> - giving me a just a false feel of safety of its existence.

So obviously you should run pbulk in a chroot.

> Also, if I am doing a compilation on non-prod build server wipe out is no
> risk IMO.

which is sort of like pbulk.