Re: portmaster installation trampling on my binary packages???

2017-03-19 Thread RW via freebsd-ports 
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:57:48 +
Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:


> I'm not sure I understand. Are "latest" and "quarterly" ports trees?
>

The default packages for releases are built from a series of branches
of the main ports tree that are made split-off every three months, and
then just get security updates.

 
> Oh, reading section 4 of the handbook got me into this mess. :)
> Perhaps I'm too tired to read it properly, because I don't see
> anything to suggest I avoid mixing packages & ports freely.

The main problem is  mixing packages from different versions of the
ports tree. You would probably have got away with that if you'd updated
as much as possible with pkg and then just updated the few remaining
packages from ports, but ideally you should use the same version of the
ports tree that was used to build the package files. Your problem today
was that you told portmaster to upgrade *everything* from ports.
___
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: portmaster installation trampling on my binary packages???

2017-03-19 Thread Ethan Grammatikidis 
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017, at 07:54 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:

> I think you need to understand the relationship between packages and
> ports. First and foremost, they are the same thing. When you build a
> port you are actually creating a package by processing the source
> files. This usually, but not always means compiling, linking, creating
> libraries, often both shareable (.so) and static (.a), installing
> documents, etc. This is done in a process called staging. The staged
> port is then packed into a package and the package is installed. This
> package is the exact same package that is installed by using pkg
> install, except that it is created locally from the sources instead of
> being downloaded from a repository.


That explains almost everything! Thanks.



> When you run 'portmaster -a', you are telling the system to go
> through every installed port and confirm that it is the same version
> as that installed. If it is not, regardless of whether it was
> installed by building the port or by downloading and installing the
> binary package, portmaster will build and install the new port,
> replacing the old port.
> If you have installed from the packages included in a FreeBSD
> distribution, they are the packages existing at the time of the
> release. In many cases, this is a LOT of packages as they are
> continually updated as needed. (Some not very often and others as
> often as every week or two.) So hte first time you run 'portmaster -
> a', you will build and re-install a LOT of things and, since the pre-
> built packages are all built using the default build option, you may
> get a lot of configuration screens where you can choose non-default
> options. These options will be saved and future updates will not ask
> again until the options are changed, a far less frequent thing. Again,
> the initial run of portmaster is at least "tedious".


That makes complete sense after the first paragraph.



> My question must start with "Do you have a reason to build from
> sources? You do if you need non-default options, but otherwise that is
> likely not needed and extremely time consuming. Instead you can jsut
> use packages and install the pre-built binaries. Y0ou don't even need
> to have ports on you system.


Indeed. I had planned to install most everything with pkg, only
installing from ports things which weren't available as binary packages.
The big thing which pushed me to the ports tree was not plan9port (which
I could easily install from source), but this:


$ pkg query -e '%c ~ *game* || %e ~ *game*' %n
pysolfc

$



Am I misunderstanding pkg query -e, too? :)



> Here is what I do for most systems:

> If any ports require non-default options, and few will, use "pkg lock
> PACKAGE-NAME" so pkg will not attempt to update the port from
> binaries. Then I run 'pkg upgrade' regularly. This will update any
> ports that have been modified since you installed your system. Because
> it installed binary packages, it is quite speedy. Then, I run 'make -C
> /usr/ports fetchindex' to get the latest index of ports and then 'pkg
> version -vL=' to check on whether any locked ports need to be touched.
> (As I have no more than 2 such ports 0n any system, this is pretty
> infrequent.) If you don't have any ports that need to be built from
> scratch, you can skip this and not even worry about the ports.


That all looks useful, I'll keep a copy to refer to.



> the other issue is whether you want to keep all ports right up to the
> latest update. There are two sets of packages built for every release.
> One is "latest" and the other is "quarterly". 'quarterly' is only
> updated four times a year or for security fixes. 'latest' is
> continually updated. Most people probably are fine running with
> quarterly. It results in a lot less churn and fewer cases of being
> bitten by buggy updates. (Yes, they do happen.)


I'm not sure I understand. Are "latest" and "quarterly" ports trees?



> I strongly urge that you read the sections of the FreeBSD Handbook[1]
> , especially the section on ports and packages, Section 4. It should
> clarify a lot and make things simpler.
> --

> Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer

> E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com

> PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683



Oh, reading section 4 of the handbook got me into this mess. :) Perhaps
I'm too tired to read it properly, because I don't see anything to
suggest I avoid mixing packages & ports freely.


--

I'm too old to use vi.




Links:

  1. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/
___
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: portmaster installation trampling on my binary packages???

2017-03-19 Thread Baptiste Daroussin 
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 08:26:33PM +, RW via freebsd-ports wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:35:26 +
> Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
> 
> > Hi. I'm quite new to FreeBSD. I'm getting a system up & running
> > slowly, working around my chronic fatigue. Today I'm updating for the
> > first time. Base system and pkg update appeared to go well. I haven't
> > rebooted, wanting to get everything done before reboot.
> > 
> > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/ports-using.html
> > This handook page says "ports-mgmt/portmaster is a very small utility
> > for upgrading installed ports. It is designed to use the tools
> > installed with the FreeBSD base system without depending on other
> > ports or databases." That sounds just fine to me, so I did the usual
> > to install portmaster, cd to its directory, and make install clean. 
> > 
> > So far, so good. Then I ran portmaster -a, and it all went
> > pear-shaped. 
> 
> When you do a make install you are installing a package; all
> other things being equal, there's really no difference between that and
> installing a package file created on the FreeBSD build machines.  

There is a big difference, the packages not being built in a clean room, they
migt end up a bit differently (unexpected linking etc). Note that since the
ports tree uses pkg, the make install process is going through the same
mechanism and so doing the same thing as installing the package (pkg register is
called there) while before it was wrong, different post-install scripts.
> 
> When you run portmaster -a you are telling it to upgrade all your
> installed packages that are not up-to-date with your ports tree
> using ports. Since pkg uses a quarterly branch by default, that's likely
> to be very different to the current tree, so it's likely to be a major
> rebuild. 
> 
> If portmaster upgraded anything, you need to either let it complete, or
> put everything back to the previous state.  If no one has a better
> suggestion you could just use pkg to deinstall everything, then
> reinstall what you want.
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> ___
> 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"


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: portmaster installation trampling on my binary packages???

2017-03-19 Thread RW via freebsd-ports 
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:35:26 +
Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:

> Hi. I'm quite new to FreeBSD. I'm getting a system up & running
> slowly, working around my chronic fatigue. Today I'm updating for the
> first time. Base system and pkg update appeared to go well. I haven't
> rebooted, wanting to get everything done before reboot.
> 
> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/ports-using.html
> This handook page says "ports-mgmt/portmaster is a very small utility
> for upgrading installed ports. It is designed to use the tools
> installed with the FreeBSD base system without depending on other
> ports or databases." That sounds just fine to me, so I did the usual
> to install portmaster, cd to its directory, and make install clean. 
> 
> So far, so good. Then I ran portmaster -a, and it all went
> pear-shaped. 

When you do a make install you are installing a package; all
other things being equal, there's really no difference between that and
installing a package file created on the FreeBSD build machines.  

When you run portmaster -a you are telling it to upgrade all your
installed packages that are not up-to-date with your ports tree
using ports. Since pkg uses a quarterly branch by default, that's likely
to be very different to the current tree, so it's likely to be a major
rebuild. 

If portmaster upgraded anything, you need to either let it complete, or
put everything back to the previous state.  If no one has a better
suggestion you could just use pkg to deinstall everything, then
reinstall what you want.



  

___
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: portmaster installation trampling on my binary packages???

2017-03-19 Thread Adam Weinberger 
> On 19 Mar, 2017, at 13:54, Kevin Oberman  wrote:
> 
> Then I run 'pkg upgrade' regularly. This will update any ports that have
> been modified since you installed your system.

Everything that Kevin said is right on the money, but I wanted to highlight 
this in particular.

If you've installed from packages, you want to run "pkg upgrade" to keep your 
system up-to-date, not "portmaster -a".

pkg is the best tool for managing packages. portmaster wasn't written for 
binary packages.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.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: portmaster installation trampling on my binary packages???

2017-03-19 Thread Kevin Oberman 
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis 
wrote:

> Hi. I'm quite new to FreeBSD. I'm getting a system up & running slowly,
> working around my chronic fatigue. Today I'm updating for the first time.
> Base system and pkg update appeared to go well. I haven't rebooted, wanting
> to get everything done before reboot.
>
> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/ports-using.html
> This handook page says "ports-mgmt/portmaster is a very small utility for
> upgrading installed ports. It is designed to use the tools installed with
> the FreeBSD base system without depending on other ports or databases."
> That sounds just fine to me, so I did the usual to install portmaster, cd
> to its directory, and make install clean.
>
> So far, so good. Then I ran portmaster -a, and it all went pear-shaped. I
> found myself looking at an endless stream of dialogs; compile-time options
> for things I don't remember installing as ports. Assuming they're
> dependencies of some port I installed I accept this, but I'm puzzled
> because I only remember installing one port (devel/plan9port), and I
> thought it only built itself and maybe one dependency.
>
> Then it got disturbing: I get a dialog for *xorg* compile-time options. I
> installed xorg with pkg, a binary package, not a compiled port. I was
> briefly uncertain, my memory isn't very good, so I checked this:
> # date -jr `pkg query %t xorg`
> Sat Mar 11 21:32:41 GMT 2017
>
> What's going on? Is it going to build xorg and all these dozens of other
> ports too? If so, what about the binary packages I installed? Will they be
> overwritten? When I installed that one port, it didn't see the need to
> compile xorg from ports then, so why is it asking me about xorg compile
> time options now? Why is it asking me to configure literally dozens of
> other ports I don't care about? That question goes double if it's NOT going
> to install any of these ports.
>
> Most of all, why is this massive drain on my energy happening when all I
> did was ask for the installation of something described in FreeBSD's
> official handbook as "very small"?
>
> It's now sitting waiting for me to select bash compile time options, a
> shell I do not care about AT ALL. If it's installed, it's a binary package
> as a dependency of some other binary package. Can I safely ^C this? Is
> portmaster normally this insane? If so, why does the handbook recommend it?!
>
>
> There have been a couple of strange incidents with the ports tree prior to
> this. I installed from dvd, selecting to install the ports tree at that
> time. This took long enough that it looked like the biggest part of the
> installation. When I tried to install that one port, it told me it needed
> to fetch the port tree. I thought this bizzarre, but ran the suggested
> command anyway, and after that the port installed just fine. Today I refer
> to the handbook, and it recommends upgrading the tree using portsnap. Fine,
> I accept this recommendation... and portsnap then proceeds to whine that it
> can't work with the default ports tree, it needs *it's* version. (Why is it
> part of the base system if it can't use the default tree?) After a couple
> of aeons waiting for portsnap to do its thing and then mk clean just in
> case I'd installed something else and forgotten about it, I then installed
> portmaster and tried to use it with the results described above.


I think you need to understand the relationship between packages and ports.
First and foremost, they are the same thing. When you build a port you are
actually creating a package by processing the source files. This usually,
but not always means compiling, linking, creating libraries, often both
shareable (.so) and static (.a), installing documents, etc. This is done in
a process called staging. The staged port is then packed into a package and
the package is installed. This package is the exact same package that is
installed by using pkg install, except that it is created locally from the
sources instead of being downloaded from a repository.

When you run 'portmaster -a', you are telling the system to go through
every installed port and confirm that it is the same version as that
installed. If it is not, regardless of whether it was installed by building
the port or by downloading and installing the binary package, portmaster
will build and install the new port, replacing the old port.

If you have installed from the packages included in a FreeBSD distribution,
they are the packages existing at the time of the release. In many cases,
this is a LOT of packages as they are continually updated as needed. (Some
not very often and others as often as every week or two.) So hte first time
you run 'portmaster -a', you will build and re-install a LOT of things and,
since the pre-built packages are all built using the default build option,
you may get a lot of configuration screens where you can choose non-default
options. These options will be saved and future

portmaster installation trampling on my binary packages???

2017-03-19 Thread Ethan Grammatikidis 
Hi. I'm quite new to FreeBSD. I'm getting a system up & running slowly, working 
around my chronic fatigue. Today I'm updating for the first time. Base system 
and pkg update appeared to go well. I haven't rebooted, wanting to get 
everything done before reboot.

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/ports-using.html
This handook page says "ports-mgmt/portmaster is a very small utility for 
upgrading installed ports. It is designed to use the tools installed with the 
FreeBSD base system without depending on other ports or databases." That sounds 
just fine to me, so I did the usual to install portmaster, cd to its directory, 
and make install clean. 

So far, so good. Then I ran portmaster -a, and it all went pear-shaped. I found 
myself looking at an endless stream of dialogs; compile-time options for things 
I don't remember installing as ports. Assuming they're dependencies of some 
port I installed I accept this, but I'm puzzled because I only remember 
installing one port (devel/plan9port), and I thought it only built itself and 
maybe one dependency.

Then it got disturbing: I get a dialog for *xorg* compile-time options. I 
installed xorg with pkg, a binary package, not a compiled port. I was briefly 
uncertain, my memory isn't very good, so I checked this:
# date -jr `pkg query %t xorg` 
Sat Mar 11 21:32:41 GMT 2017

What's going on? Is it going to build xorg and all these dozens of other ports 
too? If so, what about the binary packages I installed? Will they be 
overwritten? When I installed that one port, it didn't see the need to compile 
xorg from ports then, so why is it asking me about xorg compile time options 
now? Why is it asking me to configure literally dozens of other ports I don't 
care about? That question goes double if it's NOT going to install any of these 
ports. 

Most of all, why is this massive drain on my energy happening when all I did 
was ask for the installation of something described in FreeBSD's official 
handbook as "very small"?

It's now sitting waiting for me to select bash compile time options, a shell I 
do not care about AT ALL. If it's installed, it's a binary package as a 
dependency of some other binary package. Can I safely ^C this? Is portmaster 
normally this insane? If so, why does the handbook recommend it?!


There have been a couple of strange incidents with the ports tree prior to 
this. I installed from dvd, selecting to install the ports tree at that time. 
This took long enough that it looked like the biggest part of the installation. 
When I tried to install that one port, it told me it needed to fetch the port 
tree. I thought this bizzarre, but ran the suggested command anyway, and after 
that the port installed just fine. Today I refer to the handbook, and it 
recommends upgrading the tree using portsnap. Fine, I accept this 
recommendation... and portsnap then proceeds to whine that it can't work with 
the default ports tree, it needs *it's* version. (Why is it part of the base 
system if it can't use the default tree?) After a couple of aeons waiting for 
portsnap to do its thing and then mk clean just in case I'd installed something 
else and forgotten about it, I then installed portmaster and tried to use it 
with the results described above.

-- 
I'm too old to use vi.
___
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: archivers/libarchive fails to build

2017-03-19 Thread Walter Schwarzenfeld 
I looked with pkg_libchk and portmaster --check-depends, but forgot pkg 
check -d. Pkg check -d states some ports/packages missing liblzma.so.1 
after I removed

lzmalib. I had to recompile this ports. This fixed this issue.

Corrected in the PR.
___
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"