On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:48 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
>
> On Jan 07, 2011, at 17:37 , Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 01/07/2011 13:54, Ade Lovett wrote:
>>>
>>> Most likely it's low priority given all the other exp-runs that
>>> affect 7.x/8.x, tweaking things for an 6.x-EOL-tagged tree, and a
>>> bunch of other infrastructure stuff. Not to mention the impending 7-
>>> and 8- RELEASEs.
>
> Before I start on this, I would like a few things noted for the record:
>
> 1. I have set Reply-To to developers@ (this should be a major hint)
> 2. I am not a current member of portmgr@
> 3. I requested, and served, for a very short time, on the first portmgr
>
>
>> That may very well be the case, but if so then it's incumbent on portmgr to
>> communicate that. If you check the audit trail you will find that they did
>> not.
>
> Horsecrap. You are taking an individual PR history without reference to the
> whole host of things that were also going on at the same time. Like it or
> not, when it comes to ports, -STABLE wins over -CURRENT every single time.
>
>> IMO this is a total red herring, and has been for several years now. I run
>> -current every day on my real-work system, and barring the occasional hiccup
>> it's been buildable nearly every time I've tried.
>
> Apologies for not being able to drive my email client appropriately. The
> issue at hand is one of running -CURRENT.
>
> There is a distinct, and fundamental difference between running -CURRENT on a
> single system, as opposed to a cluster of systems that are tightly
> interlinked. I do not doubt that -CURRENT works for you on your individual
> machines. If you would like a taste of how heavily package build clusters
> stress out whatever host system they are running on, then I urge you to
> install one of the two tinderbox ports under ports-mgmt, proceed to add,
> let's say, x11/gnome2 or x11/kde4, and run the build.
>
> make buildworld/buildkernel/installworld/installkernel plus associated steps
> is in fact an exceptionally tiny subset of what FreeBSD actually does on a
> daily basis. Even more so when it comes to the bulk building of packages
> that apparently a lot of folks rely on.
>
>> The way I would approach the problem of building packages for -current is to
>> pick a day to update the src tree, then do the following:
>
> Sadly, the only thing I can say to your 4-step procedure, and with utmost
> politeness, is that your src-centric views are completely missing the point.
> "4. start building ports" is in fact a 20- or 30-step process to ensure no
> cross-contamination. Even a cursory glance at /usr/ports/Tools/portbuild
> would verify this. No-one really likes having massive clusters, requiring
> continual attention (hardware failures and so on). Really.
>
>> But the current system of "don't do anything" just isn't cutting it.
>
> I look forward to your input and total solutions on how to make this better.
> I do. This may sound sarcastic, but I am absolutely, positively, 100-percent
> looking for better solutions, particularly in situations where, to take a
> random example, the entire existing compiler base is removed and replaced
> with something better.
>
> Doug, you have comprehensively shown that in its current (sic) instantiation,
> the package building cluster is completely, utterly, and totally incapable of
> keeping up with the sandbox that is -CURRENT.
>
> I for one look forward to your proposed solutions to this righteous problem.
Hi Ade,
Sorry to jump in, but I think that a lot of the solution to this
problem is two part:
1. Using the VM resources at your.org .
2. Replicating pointyhat's infrastructure for mass deployment.
Back at BSDCan 2010 your.org offered cycles and resources for
tinderboxes (ports and src alike), but I think that due to lack of time /
resources portmgr hasn't been able to invest in that solution (*slap me please
if I'm incorrect :)..*). Not sure if the src development tinderbox
infrastructure became a reality either.
If developers had access to a [relatively] easy to deploy
infrastructure and pointyhat was easy to replicate (that in and of itself is a
major project that linimon@ was working on in the past year or so), then this
would be less of a problem.
Granted, the ports tree is huge, but by now dim@ could have probably
finished off a few self-service exp-runs on his own if he could have done it on
his own.
Thanks,
-Garrett_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
