Re: dependency explosions

[Miroslav Lachman]

Graham Menhennitt wrote on 2016/10/06 01:49:

Sorry, I just read that UPDATING entry again. Cyrus is only provided to
Dovecot if Postfix is present. I do not have Postfix present. So, I
think that I do need to install Cyrus explicitly.

So, back to my original question, why does "pkg autoremove" want to
uninstall Cyrus when I explicitly installed it from the port?


pkg autoremove is working with pkg internal database. If you install 
some ports directly with command "pkg install SomePort", then this ports 
is nor marked as autoamtic. If some port is installed as depedency, then 
it is marked as automatic and if parent port is removed, then this 
automatic port can be deleted by "pkg autoremove"


You can use "pkg query" to check what is marked as automatic

pkg query '%a %n' | sort

You can change this settings by "pkg set" (see man pkg-query example)

EXAMPLES
 Change a package from automatic to non-automatic, which will prevent
 autoremove from removing it:
   % pkg set -A 0 perl-5.14



Why you need cyrus-sasl? Do you use some tools from this package or just 
some libs?
The Dovecot / Postfix case is that Dovecot have it's own internal SASL 
libs and Postfix from some version have internal support for Dovecots 
SASL and do not need to be build with Cyrus-SASL. But it is not related 
to you if you are not using Postfix.


Miroslav Lachman
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: dependency explosions

[Graham Menhennitt]

Sorry, I just read that UPDATING entry again. Cyrus is only provided to 
Dovecot if Postfix is present. I do not have Postfix present. So, I 
think that I do need to install Cyrus explicitly.


So, back to my original question, why does "pkg autoremove" want to 
uninstall Cyrus when I explicitly installed it from the port?


Thanks,
Graham

On 6/10/2016 10:12 AM, Graham Menhennitt wrote:

Thanks for that, olli.

I didn't understand how I'd missed the fact that Dovecot now included 
Cyrus. So I had a look at /usr/ports/UPDATING. Searching for Dovecot 
shows a mention of it in the entry at 20160228. However, that's 
entitled "AFFECTS: users of mail/postfix", and I don't use Postfix. I 
think that Dovecot should have its own entry in UPDATING for that 
change too.


Graham

On 6/10/2016 9:38 AM, olli hauer wrote:
Postfix in combination with dovecot doesn't require cyrus, since some 
months dovecot support is always provided by postfix.

But i"m sorry and cannot expliain why cyrus is installed on your system
--
send with broken GMX mailer client, sorry for tofu and html scrap
On 06/10/2016, 00:29 Graham Menhennitt  wrote:

On 6/10/2016 8:20 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit :
>> Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports
"remove
>> all the ports that were just build dependencies".
> pkg autoremove
>

Thanks for that Mathieu - I didn't know about that one.

However...

When I run it, it tells me that it's going to remove my cyrus-SASL
port.
I installed that (via its port) so that I can use SSL/TLS
authentication
on my Dovecot server (installed via the dovecot2 port). So Cyrus
is not
a build dependency of anything - why is it offering to remove it?

Thanks,
Graham
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: dependency explosions

[Graham Menhennitt]

Thanks for that, olli.

I didn't understand how I'd missed the fact that Dovecot now included 
Cyrus. So I had a look at /usr/ports/UPDATING. Searching for Dovecot 
shows a mention of it in the entry at 20160228. However, that's entitled 
"AFFECTS: users of mail/postfix", and I don't use Postfix. I think that 
Dovecot should have its own entry in UPDATING for that change too.


Graham

On 6/10/2016 9:38 AM, olli hauer wrote:
Postfix in combination with dovecot doesn't require cyrus, since some 
months dovecot support is always provided by postfix.

But i"m sorry and cannot expliain why cyrus is installed on your system
--
send with broken GMX mailer client, sorry for tofu and html scrap
On 06/10/2016, 00:29 Graham Menhennitt  wrote:

On 6/10/2016 8:20 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit :
>> Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports
"remove
>> all the ports that were just build dependencies".
> pkg autoremove
>

Thanks for that Mathieu - I didn't know about that one.

However...

When I run it, it tells me that it's going to remove my cyrus-SASL
port.
I installed that (via its port) so that I can use SSL/TLS
authentication
on my Dovecot server (installed via the dovecot2 port). So Cyrus
is not
a build dependency of anything - why is it offering to remove it?

Thanks,
Graham
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" 



___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: dependency explosions

[Graham Menhennitt]

On 6/10/2016 8:20 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit :

Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove
all the ports that were just build dependencies".

pkg autoremove



Thanks for that Mathieu - I didn't know about that one.

However...

When I run it, it tells me that it's going to remove my cyrus-SASL port. 
I installed that (via its port) so that I can use SSL/TLS authentication 
on my Dovecot server (installed via the dovecot2 port). So Cyrus is not 
a build dependency of anything - why is it offering to remove it?


Thanks,
Graham
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: dependency explosions

[Julian Elischer]

On 5/10/2016 2:20 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit :

Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove
all the ports that were just build dependencies".

pkg autoremove
hmm I didn't know that would remove build deps for packages that are 
still installed.. if so .. good!






___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: dependency explosions

[Mathieu Arnold]

Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit :
> Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove
> all the ports that were just build dependencies".

pkg autoremove

-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: dependency explosions

[Julian Elischer]

On 5/10/2016 1:39 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:

Julian Elischer wrote on 10/05/2016 22:04:

On 4/10/2016 11:38 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit :

On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :

There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.
Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by 
running

make config.

Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when 
coming in

as a dependency, as
there is an increasing tendency to configure things with all 
the bells

and whistles.
The bare minimum will never be the default.  The default is what 
will

fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box.

I didn't say it should be the default, I said it should be an 
easy to

request option,
(without using the config screen on each of 25000 ports)
e.g. setting PORTS_CONFIG_MINIMUM before making everything.
Most ports and packages are installed not because people want them,
but because they are forced to do so by dependencies.
Giving a way to reduce the number of unrequested packages, in a 
simple

way would be of great use to many many people
Feel free to open PR/provide patches for ports which you think 
need to

provide more options.

I think it would be a framework change.
not  so much a per-port change.
By default, when the variable is set you take the list of options for
the package, and set them all to 'unset'.

The only packages that would need work would be those for which 
that is
not a valid configuration, in which case you would supply some 
precanned
list of options to set to unset (or similar)  e.g. 
MIN_SETTINGS="bla foo

bar"

>

the point is that if I'm including a port becuase it's just a prereq.
then I probably want almost no options set..  The port itself can
probably know what options are likely to be needed by things that need
it adn can possibly supply a sensible setting but if it doesn't it 
might

be possible to just do it automatically. It's ridiculous that a single
small port can pull in python, perl and TCL (I forget which it was)
along with some 40 or so other packages.



There is one more problem - port A needs port B as dependency, port 
B can be compiled with 4 options [W,X,Y,Z], port A needs port B with 
option X which pull port C as dependency.
So this needs to be set somewhere or else default minimal options 
would break some ports.
any non-minimum port would trump a minimum port I would think. (and 
replace it?)


it's just an idea. Born from frustration of not being able to do thigs 
because htey call in too many other things.
If you call in too many other things the chance of one of them 
breaking gets higher. (approaches unity in some cases I think).



Miroslav Lachman




___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: dependency explosions

[Miroslav Lachman]

Julian Elischer wrote on 10/05/2016 22:04:

On 4/10/2016 11:38 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit :

On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :

There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.

Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running
make config.


Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming in
as a dependency, as
there is an increasing tendency to configure things with all the bells
and whistles.

The bare minimum will never be the default.  The default is what will
fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box.


I didn't say it should be the default, I said it should be an easy to
request option,
(without using the config screen on each of 25000 ports)
e.g. setting PORTS_CONFIG_MINIMUM before making everything.
Most ports and packages are installed not because people want them,
but because they are forced to do so by dependencies.
Giving a way to reduce the number of unrequested packages, in a simple
way would be of great use to many many people

Feel free to open PR/provide patches for ports which you think need to
provide more options.

I think it would be a framework change.
not  so much a per-port change.
By default, when the variable is set you take the list of options for
the package, and set them all to 'unset'.

The only packages that would need work would be those for which that is
not a valid configuration, in which case you would supply some precanned
list of options to set to unset (or similar)  e.g. MIN_SETTINGS="bla foo
bar"

>

the point is that if I'm including a port becuase it's just a prereq.
then I probably want almost no options set..  The port itself can
probably know what options are likely to be needed by things that need
it adn can possibly supply a sensible setting but if it doesn't it might
be possible to just do it automatically. It's ridiculous that a single
small port can pull in python, perl and TCL (I forget which it was)
along with some 40 or so other packages.



There is one more problem - port A needs port B as dependency, port B 
can be compiled with 4 options [W,X,Y,Z], port A needs port B with 
option X which pull port C as dependency.
So this needs to be set somewhere or else default minimal options would 
break some ports.


Miroslav Lachman

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: dependency explosions

[Julian Elischer]

On 4/10/2016 11:38 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit :

On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :

There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.

Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running
make config.


Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming in
as a dependency, as
there is an increasing tendency to configure things with all the bells
and whistles.

The bare minimum will never be the default.  The default is what will
fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box.


I didn't say it should be the default, I said it should be an easy to
request option,
(without using the config screen on each of 25000 ports)
e.g. setting PORTS_CONFIG_MINIMUM before making everything.
Most ports and packages are installed not because people want them,
but because they are forced to do so by dependencies.
Giving a way to reduce the number of unrequested packages, in a simple
way would be of great use to many many people

Feel free to open PR/provide patches for ports which you think need to
provide more options.

I think it would be a framework change.
not  so much a per-port change.
By default, when the variable is set you take the list of options for 
the package, and set them all to 'unset'.


The only packages that would need work would be those for which that 
is not a valid configuration, in which case you would supply some 
precanned list of options to set to unset (or similar)  e.g. 
MIN_SETTINGS="bla foo bar"


the point is that if I'm including a port becuase it's just a prereq. 
then I probably want almost no options set..  The port itself can 
probably know what options are likely to be needed by things that need 
it adn can possibly supply a sensible setting but if it doesn't it 
might be possible to just do it automatically. It's ridiculous that a 
single small port can pull in python, perl and TCL (I forget which it 
was) along with some 40 or so other packages.


Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove 
all the ports that were just build dependencies".









___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: dependency explosions

[George Mitchell]

On 10/04/16 23:18, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> [...]
>> The bare minimum will never be the default.  The default is what will
>> fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box.
>>
> I didn't say it should be the default, I said it should be an easy to
> request option,
> (without using the config screen on each of 25000 ports)
> e.g. setting PORTS_CONFIG_MINIMUM before making everything.
> [...]

+1!   -- George
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

poudriere jail build using -m src=

[Jev Björsell]

Hello,

I'm attempting to create a new poudriere jail using the `-m src=/path`
method. The poudriere man page states about the -m src= option; "*This
directory will not be built from. It is expected that it is already built
and maps to a corresponding /usr/obj directory.*". So I have first done a
build world as follows;

export MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX=/home/jev/obj
cd /home/jev/src; make buildworld

this populates /home/jev/obj as expected. Then I run;

poudriere jails -c -j freebsd110_amd64  -m src=/home/jev/src -v 11.0

which fails shortly after the ">>> Installing everything" stage with the
following error;

"ccache: error: Could not find compiler "cc" in PATH " shortly after the
"Install Everything" stage.

I expect I'm overlooking something fundamental, any pointers are greatly
appreciated. Thank you.

Jev

PS.
Looking for a comitter for two new ports;
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212468
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212467
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: usage of openssl command in ports

[Koichiro IWAO]

Then you can just use:

${OPENSSLBASE}/bin/openssl

to run the appropriate binary.  You'ld have to use the SUB_LIST and
SUB_FILES mechanism to get the resulting value substituted into
pkg-install.in


This is what I wanted, thanks!

--
`whois vmeta.jp | nkf -w`
meta 
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date

[portscout]

Dear port maintainer,

The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your
ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check
each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated, you can
safely ignore the entry.

You will not be e-mailed again for any of the port/version combinations
below.

Full details can be found at the following URL:
http://portscout.freebsd.org/po...@freebsd.org.html


Port| Current version | New version
+-+
comms/picocom   | 2.1 | 2.2
+-+


If any of the above results are invalid, please check the following page
for details on how to improve portscout's detection and selection of
distfiles on a per-port basis:

http://portscout.freebsd.org/info/portscout-portconfig.txt

Thanks.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: dependency explosions

[Mathieu Arnold]

Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit :
> On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
>>> There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.
>> Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running
>> make config.
>>
>>> Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming in
>>> as a dependency, as
>>> there is an increasing tendency to configure things with all the bells
>>> and whistles.
>> The bare minimum will never be the default.  The default is what will
>> fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box.
>>
> I didn't say it should be the default, I said it should be an easy to
> request option,
> (without using the config screen on each of 25000 ports)
> e.g. setting PORTS_CONFIG_MINIMUM before making everything.
> Most ports and packages are installed not because people want them,
> but because they are forced to do so by dependencies.
> Giving a way to reduce the number of unrequested packages, in a simple
> way would be of great use to many many people

Feel free to open PR/provide patches for ports which you think need to
provide more options.


-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: usage of openssl command in ports

[Mathieu Arnold]

Le 05/10/2016 à 04:04, Koichiro IWAO a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about usage of openssl command in ports.
>
> If a port uses openssl command for example in pkg-install, how can I
> determine which openssl to use?
> I think if ssl=base, /usr/bin/openssl should be used.  If ssl=openssl,
> ${PREFIX}/bin/openssl should be used.
> And other ssl ports.
>
> Is there something like ${OPENSSL_CMD} or do I have to do manually
> like this?
>
> .if ${SSL_DEFAULT} == base
> OPENSSL_CMD= /usr/bin/openssl
> .endif
>
> .if ${SSL_DEFAULT} == openssl
> OPENSSL_CMD= ${PREFIX}/bin/openssl
> .endif

It should be:

.if ${SSL_DEFAULT} == base
OPENSSL_CMD= /usr/bin/openssl
.else
OPENSSL_CMD= ${PREFIX}/bin/openssl
.endif


-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: usage of openssl command in ports

[Matthew Seaman]

On 05/10/2016 03:04, Koichiro IWAO wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a question about usage of openssl command in ports.
> 
> If a port uses openssl command for example in pkg-install, how can I
> determine which openssl to use?
> I think if ssl=base, /usr/bin/openssl should be used.  If ssl=openssl,
> ${PREFIX}/bin/openssl should be used.
> And other ssl ports.

Correct.  You can also specify ssl=libressl

> Is there something like ${OPENSSL_CMD} or do I have to do manually like
> this?
> 
> .if ${SSL_DEFAULT} == base
> OPENSSL_CMD= /usr/bin/openssl
> .endif
> 
> .if ${SSL_DEFAULT} == openssl
> OPENSSL_CMD= ${PREFIX}/bin/openssl
> .endif
> 
> .if ${SSL_DEFAULT} == libressl
> OPENSSL_CMD= "i don't know"
> .endif

No -- all of the openssl-like ports install an openssl binary.  If your
port has:

USES=   ssl

Then you can just use:

${OPENSSLBASE}/bin/openssl

to run the appropriate binary.  You'ld have to use the SUB_LIST and
SUB_FILES mechanism to get the resulting value substituted into
pkg-install.in

Cheers,

Matthew






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature