Please upgrade ports-mgmt/synth to 2.00

[Jonathan Chen]

Hi Eric,

Please update ports-mgmt/synth to 2.00, which was just recently
tagged. This will bring in Flavors support.

Cheers.
-- 
Jonathan Chen 
___
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: firefox-esr on armv6/7

[bob prohaska]

Hi Mikael,

Your patch seems to have applied, but I've run into a spot of trouble.

I forgot to apply the patch before starting make, so I killed it
with control-c, applied the patch and tried to restart. The attempt
failed, some sort of error in /tmp/mountpoint... I've tried various
cleanup methods, including checkout of a fresh copy of the ports tree,
to no avail.


Is there a writeup somewhere on how to restart a make? The Handbook
does not reflect the recent changes. /usr/src and /usr/ports are 
current as of Dec. 2, if that matters. I didn't recognize anything
in /usr/ports/UPDATING.


Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska
 
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:16:12AM +0100, Mika??l Urankar wrote:
> 2017-11-29 1:47 GMT+01:00 bob prohaska :
> 
> > Hi Mikael,
> >
> > I'm game to give them a try. Can I just copy the diff to
> > /usr/ports/www/firefox-esr
> > and run something along the lines of
> > patch < *.diff
> > once the sources are downloaded and untar-ed?
> >
> > Thanks for warning me about the lang/rust dependency/breakage; I didn't
> > know
> > about it and had some hopes for 57.
> >
> > I just noticed that www/chromium is now marked ok for armv7, any idea
> > if it actually works? I've had generally good experience with chromium
> > under Raspbian OS on a Pi3. If it runs on a Pi2 it might be useful.
> 
> 
> you need to patch the ports before doing "make"
> 
> chromium is still broken on armv6/7 but appears to build on aarch64.
> 
> I forgot a patch for firefox, make sure you disable DTRACE before building
> it, it will fail otherwise.
___
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: building blender 2.79 fails because of python dependencies

[blubee blubeeme]

I do not have anything related to python in my make.conf only ccache.
WITH_CCACHE_BUILD=yes

.if (!empty(.CURDIR:M/usr/src*) || !empty(.CURDIR:M/usr/obj*))
.if !defined(NOCCACHE) && exists(/usr/local/libexec/ccache/world/cc)
CC:=${CC:C,^cc,/usr/local/libexec/ccache/world/cc,1}
CXX:=${CXX:C,^c\+\+,/usr/local/libexec/ccache/world/c++,1}
.endif
.endif

.if ${CC:T} == "clang"
CFLAGS+= -Qunused-arguments
.endif


I am a bit weary of updating my /usr/src and or /usr/ports until this
python flavors thing calm down a bit before I update.


On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Shane Ambler  wrote:

> On 30/11/2017 21:05, blubee blubeeme wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:25 PM, blubee blubeeme 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Here's a build log:
> >>
> >> running install_scripts
> ...
> >> ===>   blender-2.79_2 depends on shared library: libOpenColorIO.so - not
> >> found
> >> ===>  opencolorio-1.0.9_3 needs Python 2.7 at most, but 3.5 was
> specified.
> >> *** Error code 1
> >>
> >> Stop.
> >> make[1]: stopped in /usr/ports/graphics/opencolorio
> >> *** Error code 1
> >>
> >> Stop.
> >>
> >>
> > I solved this problem by deselecting the opencolorio, openimageio and
> > cycles options.
> >
> > But this error does bring up an error that I'm currently dealing with
> > somewhere else.
> >
> > A project that uses multiple versions of python often fail to build with
> an
> > error similar to this one above:
> > ===>  opencolorio-1.0.9_3 needs Python 2.7 at most, but 3.5 was
> specified.
> > *** Error code 1
> >
> > How do you porters work with projects that needs multiple versions of
> > python to build?
>
> blender should build with cycles openimageio and opencolorio enabled.
> Can you build and install openimageio and then build blender?
>
> A recent change added python flavors, we can now use make FLAVOR=py35 to
> build a python module for python 3.5 instead of the default 2.7
>
> https://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/FlavorsTools
>
> My guess is it is related to the python flavors change, either it is a
> glitch that has since been fixed or a config you have is effecting it as
> I can't find a way to get the error.
>
> Check your make.conf
> Do you have PYTHON_VERSION set? it shouldn't be used any more
> Do you have DEFAULT_VERSIONS= python=3.5
>
>
> --
> FreeBSD - the place to B...Software Developing
>
> Shane Ambler
>
>
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Mark Millard]

Rozhuk Ivan rozhuk.im at gmail.com wrote on
Sat Dec 2 18:18:39 UTC 2017 :

> I dont want poudriere because I dont need ZFS, jails and other crap on my 
> system.
> I dont want to play system administrator: keep and admin build servers at 
> home/work.
> 
> I just want update from source all my ports, make packages, and on other
> computers run portmaster to update from these packages on nfs share.
> Minimum overhead.
> 
> synth - at least require specific depencies.

Poudriere certainly has more space and time use
in its way of operation. (The useful vs. overhead
is status is context dependent.)

But, I did just recently experiment with a from-scratch
try-to-build-everything ( poudriere bulk -C -a ) on
a system configuration that is just UFS based. It worked
okay. (UFS vs. ZFS has various tradeoffs for such. For
now I'm using UFS in this large-use context.)

I use UFS with poudriere-devel on a BPI-M3 armv7 board
and a Pine64+ 2GB board as well (for vastly fewer ports).
There is 2 GiBytes of RAM in each of those. For them I
use PARALLEL_JOBS=1 to be more like
ports-mgmt/portmaster and its one-builder status.

By the time indirect dependencies are traced, building
and then using ports-mgmt/poudriere-devel does
require:

misc/freebsd-release-manifests
security/ca_root_nss

where the indirect dependency status is:

security/ca_root_nss
lang/perl5.24

So normally the devel/poudriere and those
3 other ports, plus ports-mgmt/pkg itself.

I've been able to establish such a context
on powerpc64, powerpc, armv7 (previously
armv6), aarch64, and amd64. For
ports-mgmt/synth only the last two of the
5 had been directly possible.

(Last I knew aarch64 was no longer buildable,
due to the initial-binary-bootstrap stage of
the compiler toolchain involved vs. later
FreeBSD header changes.)

Note: I have experimented with
ports-mgmt/synth in the past, including
on the Pine64+ 2 GB (aarch64) before
building synth and the toolchain it is
based on was broken. But I prefer an more
uniform environment instead of using distinct
techniques. Other than that, the experiment
was interesting and worked fine.


I do not claim the following is a typical
context or that it would apply to your
specific context. But it does apply to my
context.

ports-mgmt/poudiere-devel does allow:

emulators/qemu-user-static (optional: atypical?)

For enabling potential cross builds targeting
armv7, arrch64, and possibly some others. This
leads to more dependencies when selected:

emulators/qemu-user-static (optional)
(flattened, sorted list)
converters/libiconv
devel/bison
devel/gettext-runtime
devel/gettext-tools
devel/glib20
devel/gmake
devel/libffi
devel/m4
devel/p5-Locale-gettext
devel/pcre
devel/pkgconf
devel/readline
lang/perl5.24
lang/python2
lang/python27
misc/help2man
print/indexinfo
print/texinfo

I have done amd64 -> armv7 and aarch64
cross builds of ports via poudriere.

As I remember powerpc64 is supposed to be
able to use emulators/qemu-user-static and
so could target armv7 or aarch64, although
I've not tested such.

(qemu-user-static does not work for emulating
powerpc64 or powerpc FreeBSD operation
sufficiently, so, I've not used those
types of targets for cross builds.)


I do modify poudriere's jail.sh a little to
allow a more extreme form of (for example):

A) poudriere jail -c -j jailArmV7 -a arm.armv7 -x \
   -m null \
   -M /usr/obj/DESTDIRs/armv7-installworld-poud \
   -S /usr/src -v 12.0-CURRENT

   (jail creation with some native cross-build
   tools and tied to my local /usr/src/ materials .)

B) poudriere ports -c -m null -M /usr/ports

where I've prebuilt world and appropriately installed
/usr/obj/DESTDIRs/armv7-installworld-poud . The bulk
builds produce armv7 materials for that jail.

I have put copies of such world builds on the
target device and used it with poudriere on that
device as well. Thus the BPI-M3 did not have to
do its own buildworld for poudriere use in its
jail when I tried local port builds via poudriere.

===
Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net

___
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: Central build runs out of file descriptors on devel/RStudio

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 2 Dec, 2017, at 18:57, Yuri  wrote:
> 
> Build opens too many file descriptors, and fails:
> 
> http://beefy5.nyi.freebsd.org/data/103i386-default/455387/logs/RStudio-1.1.385.log
> 
> http://beefy6.nyi.freebsd.org/data/103amd64-default/455387/logs/RStudio-1.1.385.log
> 
> 
> It looks like kern.maxfiles on beefy needs to be beefed up.

Then MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER_LIMIT (or MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE) would be my next step. If it 
fails on the beefy builders, it's likely to fail on resource-starved end-user 
boxes. The builders do many concurrent builds, but it's possible for end-users 
to hit that level of activity too.

# 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"

Central build runs out of file descriptors on devel/RStudio

[Yuri]

Build opens too many file descriptors, and fails:

http://beefy5.nyi.freebsd.org/data/103i386-default/455387/logs/RStudio-1.1.385.log

http://beefy6.nyi.freebsd.org/data/103amd64-default/455387/logs/RStudio-1.1.385.log


It looks like kern.maxfiles on beefy needs to be beefed up.


Yuri


___
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: building blender 2.79 fails because of python dependencies

[Shane Ambler]

On 30/11/2017 21:05, blubee blubeeme wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:25 PM, blubee blubeeme 
> wrote:
> 
>> Here's a build log:
>>
>> running install_scripts
...
>> ===>   blender-2.79_2 depends on shared library: libOpenColorIO.so - not
>> found
>> ===>  opencolorio-1.0.9_3 needs Python 2.7 at most, but 3.5 was specified.
>> *** Error code 1
>>
>> Stop.
>> make[1]: stopped in /usr/ports/graphics/opencolorio
>> *** Error code 1
>>
>> Stop.
>>
>>
> I solved this problem by deselecting the opencolorio, openimageio and
> cycles options.
> 
> But this error does bring up an error that I'm currently dealing with
> somewhere else.
> 
> A project that uses multiple versions of python often fail to build with an
> error similar to this one above:
> ===>  opencolorio-1.0.9_3 needs Python 2.7 at most, but 3.5 was specified.
> *** Error code 1
> 
> How do you porters work with projects that needs multiple versions of
> python to build?

blender should build with cycles openimageio and opencolorio enabled.
Can you build and install openimageio and then build blender?

A recent change added python flavors, we can now use make FLAVOR=py35 to
build a python module for python 3.5 instead of the default 2.7

https://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/FlavorsTools

My guess is it is related to the python flavors change, either it is a
glitch that has since been fixed or a config you have is effecting it as
I can't find a way to get the error.

Check your make.conf
Do you have PYTHON_VERSION set? it shouldn't be used any more
Do you have DEFAULT_VERSIONS= python=3.5


-- 
FreeBSD - the place to B...Software Developing

Shane Ambler

___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 2 Dec, 2017, at 13:41, Baho Utot  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/2/2017 1:43 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:53:58AM +, Carmel NY wrote:
>>> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
>>> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
>>> done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent.
>> That's one possible explanation.  Or, as Occam's Razor suggests, they
>> continue to try to modernize the Ports Collection, despite obstacles
>> (including stale codebases and stubborn maintainers).
>> 
>> I'll admit some of the transitions have been pretty rough.  But when
>> you go back and look at Ports as of e.g. FreeBSD 4, there have been a
>> lot of good changes -- including some which were necessary due to sheer
>> scale.
>> 
>> If we had stayed with what we had then, the whole thing would have
>> collapsed by now.
>> 
>> mcl
>> ___
>> 
> 
> What you have noe is not that great either.  When is base going to be 
> packed.ie something that makes sense and works?

You seem very angry about things breaking in HEAD, Baho. Things break in HEAD 
sometimes. This is why we recommend that end-users who can't have breakages, or 
users who depend on undeveloped tools, stay on the quarterly branch. Portmaster 
works perfectly on quarterly. Always has.

Everyone understands that poudriere isn't for everybody---Steve Kargl outlined 
a pretty classic example of a workflow and system that aren't amenable to 
poudriere. We've asked repeatedly for people to work on portmaster. Far more 
people complain about it breaking than put in ANY effort to fix it.

HEAD is for development. You have to tolerate breakage on HEAD, and participate 
in fixing things, otherwise you need to switch to the quarterly branches.

# 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: poudriere, python ports, and flavors oh my?

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 2 Dec, 2017, at 5:55, Christian Ullrich  wrote:
> 
> * Henrik Hudson wrote:
> 
>> So, I must be missing something. I have a poudriere jail specific
>> make.conf like this:
> 
>> #Python
>> DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= python=3.6 python2=2.7 python3=3.6
> 
> Same here, and this happens:
> 
> # cat /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/py3-make.conf
> DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=  python=3.6
> # poudriere version
> 3.2.2
> # poudriere testport -j stable -z py3 databases/py-psycopg2
> [...]
> [00:00:02] Building 2 packages using 2 builders
> [00:00:02] Starting/Cloning builders
> [00:00:02] Hit CTRL+t at any time to see build progress and stats
> [00:00:02] [01] [00:00:00] Building lang/python27 | python27-2.7.14_1
> [00:00:02] [01] [00:00:00] Finished lang/python27 | python27-2.7.14_1: 
> Ignored: Blacklisted
> [00:00:02] [01] [00:00:00] Skipping devel/py-setuptools@py27 | 
> py27-setuptools-36.5.0: Dependent port lang/python27 | python27-2.7.14_1 
> ignored
> [00:00:02] Stopping 2 builders
> [00:00:03] Error: Depends failed to build
> [00:00:03] Failed ports:
> [00:00:03] Skipped ports: devel/py-setuptools@py27
> [00:00:03] Cleaning up
> [00:00:03] Unmounting file systems
> 
> lang/python27 is blacklisted for set py3 to prevent exactly this kind of 
> disaster. If I remove it from the blacklist, still _only_ py27-flavored 
> packages are built.
> 
> This looks like the introduction of flavors disconnected the Python ports 
> from DEFAULT_VERSIONS.
> 
> What is the purpose behind this, and how do I get poudriere to build 
> py36-flavored packages now _without_ adding "@py36" to each and every Python 
> port in the list I feed to bulk?
> 
> There is the claim in UPDATING that "People using Poudriere 3.2+ [...] do not 
> have to do anything." Unless, it appears, they use any Python version other 
> than 2.7, since adding flavor suffixes to port lists is not "not anything".
> 
> My current setup is to have two sets, one with default 2.7, the other with 
> default 3.6, resulting in two separate pkg repos, and when I need a Python 
> 3.6 package, I take it from that repo. It may be that this method is now 
> obsolete, but I would have expected this to be mentioned somewhere.

It's a bug, and it's being worked on. amdmi3 submitted 
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13326 and it's awaiting commit. If you'd like to 
test the patch and confirm that it fixes the problem that'd be helpful.

Given that most people don't participate and test patches while they're in 
review, you have to expect that some bugs will only surface when it lands in 
HEAD. This is precisely why we have quarterly branches, and why we recommend 
that most people stay on quarterly.

# 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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/2/2017 1:43 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:53:58AM +, Carmel NY wrote:

Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
"portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent.

That's one possible explanation.  Or, as Occam's Razor suggests, they
continue to try to modernize the Ports Collection, despite obstacles
(including stale codebases and stubborn maintainers).

I'll admit some of the transitions have been pretty rough.  But when
you go back and look at Ports as of e.g. FreeBSD 4, there have been a
lot of good changes -- including some which were necessary due to sheer
scale.

If we had stayed with what we had then, the whole thing would have
collapsed by now.

mcl
___



What you have noe is not that great either.  When is base going to be 
packed.ie something that makes sense and works?

___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Mark Linimon]

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:53:58AM +, Carmel NY wrote:
> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
> done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent.

That's one possible explanation.  Or, as Occam's Razor suggests, they
continue to try to modernize the Ports Collection, despite obstacles
(including stale codebases and stubborn maintainers).

I'll admit some of the transitions have been pretty rough.  But when
you go back and look at Ports as of e.g. FreeBSD 4, there have been a
lot of good changes -- including some which were necessary due to sheer
scale.

If we had stayed with what we had then, the whole thing would have
collapsed by now.

mcl
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Rozhuk Ivan]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 09:58:15 -0800
Steve Kargl  wrote:

> I have a laptop with 664 installed packages.  It has 6.4 GB 
> of free diskspace and 3.5 GB of available memory.  It is the
> only i686 system that I have and it is used to develop and
> test all of the libm code that I contribute to FreeBSD.
> /usr/src, /usr/obj, and /usr/ports/distfiles are symlinked
> to directories on a USB 2.0 external drive.  Using `poudriere
> bulk` may strain the available resources when constructing jails,
> storing built packages, and then going throught the actual
> upgrading process; whereas `portmaster -Byd` just worked.
> 
 
+1
I dont want poudriere because I dont need ZFS, jails and other crap on my 
system.
I dont want to play system administrator: keep and admin build servers at 
home/work.

I just want update from source all my ports, make packages, and on other
computers run portmaster to update from these packages on nfs share.
Minimum overhead.

synth - at least require specific depencies.
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Steve Kargl]

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 01:04:12PM +0100, Vlad K. wrote:
> On 2017-12-02 12:53, Carmel NY wrote:
> > 
> > I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working 
> > correctly. If not
> > it might be time for me to look at another OS for my network.
> 
> 
> This has been mentioned several times as a "solution", but I really 
> don't understand it. What other OS would be comparatively equal in this 
> functionality? Other than Gentoo, you'd have hard time compiling 
> individual packages, in a binary-precompiled-packages-based OS. Sure 
> there are source DEBs or RPMs, but keeping track of custom built ones is 
> not as easy as flipping a few options and running `poudriere bulk` every 
> now and then.
> 
> Which then means, you can already use binary-precompiled packages here 
> in FreeBSD. Even more so now with FLAVORS, as the packages will be built 
> with some common option variations which would match exactly what's 
> done, say in Debian based distros.
> 
> Honest question, I really am interested.
> 

I have a laptop with 664 installed packages.  It has 6.4 GB 
of free diskspace and 3.5 GB of available memory.  It is the
only i686 system that I have and it is used to develop and
test all of the libm code that I contribute to FreeBSD.
/usr/src, /usr/obj, and /usr/ports/distfiles are symlinked
to directories on a USB 2.0 external drive.  Using `poudriere
bulk` may strain the available resources when constructing jails,
storing built packages, and then going throught the actual
upgrading process; whereas `portmaster -Byd` just worked.


-- 
Steve
___
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: Last flavorless revision?

[Steve Kargl]

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 02:06:32PM +0100, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> * Steve Kargl wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:42:27PM -0700, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> >>> On 1 Dec, 2017, at 13:07, Steve Kargl  
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ports/UPDATING does not seem to include an entry noting
> >>> the last subversion revision prior to the flipping on
> >>> flavors.  Is revision 455205 the penultimate revision?
> >>
> >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org
> >>
> > 
> > ?
> 
> He means, "I could just write 'No, 455205 is the first one with FLAVORS 
> support in it, if you don't count the brief interlude from 450663 until 
> 450939 when introducing it exposed the lack of communication between 
> ports collection and ports tools maintainers for the first time', but 
> since that would be entirely too helpful, instead I'll just post a link 
> to the SVN web interface which boasts all the charm and usability of the 
> late 1990s and let you figure it out for yourself."
> 

Given that I asked about a specific revision number, it stands
to reason that I had already spent too much time wandering around
svnweb.freebsd.org.  An entry needs to be added to ports/UPDATING
to state which revision turns on flavors and by extension neuters
all port management tools except poudriere.  Four months from now
when users update a system finding that information by crawling
through svnweb.freebsd.org will be a challenge.   

-- 
Steve
20170425 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWUpyCsUKR4
20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Carmel NY]

On  Saturday, December 2, 2017 8:01 AM, Baho Utot stated:
> On 12/02/17 07:23, Charlie Li wrote:
> > On 02/12/2017 06:53, Carmel NY wrote:
> >> Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning
> >> how to use an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a relatively 
> >> small
> home network.
> >>
> > poudriere is not industrial-sized at all. Sure, it has many features
> > that I don't exactly use, but it's certainly not industrial-sized. I
> > had the same impression of a monstrosity before I started using it
> > myself, on my *laptop* of all things.
> >> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
> >> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
> >> done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent.
> >> Which brings me to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long
> >> before that becomes history also?
> >>
> > portmgr officially maintains and promotes poudriere. It's not going
> > anywhere until they say it is.
> >
> 
> Sorry tired of playing games,  leaving FreeBSD as we speak

I am going to give them a chance to get synth back up and running.  If not, 
then I am out of her too.

-- 
Carmel

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when 
you do it blows your whole leg off.

___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/02/17 07:23, Charlie Li wrote:

On 02/12/2017 06:53, Carmel NY wrote:

Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning how to use
an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a relatively small home network.


poudriere is not industrial-sized at all. Sure, it has many features
that I don't exactly use, but it's certainly not industrial-sized. I had
the same impression of a monstrosity before I started using it myself,
on my *laptop* of all things.

Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
"portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has done a
pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which brings me
to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before that becomes
history also?


portmgr officially maintains and promotes poudriere. It's not going
anywhere until they say it is.



Sorry tired of playing games,  leaving FreeBSD as we speak
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/02/17 07:04, Vlad K. wrote:

On 2017-12-02 12:53, Carmel NY wrote:


I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working 
correctly. If not

it might be time for me to look at another OS for my network.



This has been mentioned several times as a "solution", but I really 
don't understand it. What other OS would be comparatively equal in this 
functionality? Other than Gentoo, 


Arch linux, makes FreeBSD look like the childs play it is


you'd have hard time compiling
individual packages, in a binary-precompiled-packages-based OS. Sure 
there are source DEBs or RPMs, but keeping track of custom built ones is 
not as easy as flipping a few options and running `poudriere bulk` every 
now and then.


Which then means, you can already use binary-precompiled packages here 
in FreeBSD. Even more so now with FLAVORS, as the packages will be built 
with some common option variations which would match exactly what's 
done, say in Debian based distros.


Honest question, I really am interested.



___
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: Last flavorless revision?

[Christian Ullrich]

* Steve Kargl wrote:


On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:42:27PM -0700, Adam Weinberger wrote:

On 1 Dec, 2017, at 13:07, Steve Kargl  wrote:

ports/UPDATING does not seem to include an entry noting
the last subversion revision prior to the flipping on
flavors.  Is revision 455205 the penultimate revision?


https://svnweb.freebsd.org



?


He means, "I could just write 'No, 455205 is the first one with FLAVORS 
support in it, if you don't count the brief interlude from 450663 until 
450939 when introducing it exposed the lack of communication between 
ports collection and ports tools maintainers for the first time', but 
since that would be entirely too helpful, instead I'll just post a link 
to the SVN web interface which boasts all the charm and usability of the 
late 1990s and let you figure it out for yourself."


HTH,

--
Christian

___
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: poudriere, python ports, and flavors oh my?

[Christian Ullrich]

* Henrik Hudson wrote:


So, I must be missing something. I have a poudriere jail specific
make.conf like this:



#Python
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= python=3.6 python2=2.7 python3=3.6


Same here, and this happens:

# cat /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/py3-make.conf
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=  python=3.6
# poudriere version
3.2.2
# poudriere testport -j stable -z py3 databases/py-psycopg2
[...]
[00:00:02] Building 2 packages using 2 builders
[00:00:02] Starting/Cloning builders
[00:00:02] Hit CTRL+t at any time to see build progress and stats
[00:00:02] [01] [00:00:00] Building lang/python27 | python27-2.7.14_1
[00:00:02] [01] [00:00:00] Finished lang/python27 | python27-2.7.14_1: 
Ignored: Blacklisted
[00:00:02] [01] [00:00:00] Skipping devel/py-setuptools@py27 | 
py27-setuptools-36.5.0: Dependent port lang/python27 | python27-2.7.14_1 
ignored

[00:00:02] Stopping 2 builders
[00:00:03] Error: Depends failed to build
[00:00:03] Failed ports:
[00:00:03] Skipped ports: devel/py-setuptools@py27
[00:00:03] Cleaning up
[00:00:03] Unmounting file systems

lang/python27 is blacklisted for set py3 to prevent exactly this kind of 
disaster. If I remove it from the blacklist, still _only_ py27-flavored 
packages are built.


This looks like the introduction of flavors disconnected the Python 
ports from DEFAULT_VERSIONS.


What is the purpose behind this, and how do I get poudriere to build 
py36-flavored packages now _without_ adding "@py36" to each and every 
Python port in the list I feed to bulk?


There is the claim in UPDATING that "People using Poudriere 3.2+ [...] 
do not have to do anything." Unless, it appears, they use any Python 
version other than 2.7, since adding flavor suffixes to port lists is 
not "not anything".


My current setup is to have two sets, one with default 2.7, the other 
with default 3.6, resulting in two separate pkg repos, and when I need a 
Python 3.6 package, I take it from that repo. It may be that this method 
is now obsolete, but I would have expected this to be mentioned somewhere.


--
Christian
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Charlie Li]

On 02/12/2017 06:53, Carmel NY wrote:
> Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning how to use
> an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a relatively small home 
> network.
> 
poudriere is not industrial-sized at all. Sure, it has many features
that I don't exactly use, but it's certainly not industrial-sized. I had
the same impression of a monstrosity before I started using it myself,
on my *laptop* of all things.
> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has done a
> pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which brings me
> to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before that becomes
> history also?
> 
portmgr officially maintains and promotes poudriere. It's not going
anywhere until they say it is.

-- 
Charlie Li
Can't think of a witty .sigline today…

(This email address is for mailing list use only;
replace local-part with vishwin for off-list communication)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Felix Hanley]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 09:59:33AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> First, welcome flavors. It has been badly needed for a while and is going
> to clean up a couple of messes that have been plaguing the port system for
> a long time.
> 
> Second, whither port msanagement tools? At least portmaster now appears
> dead. Any reason to expect it to be workable again? I have not tried synth
> with flavors, yet,.but I see noting committed to deal with them, so it
> looks like port management has devolved to raw "make" operations or
> poudriere. Am I missing some other option?

Give jrmarino some time, he is obviously working on it:
https://github.com/jrmarino/synth/commit/35a664ac24b5cf6aedb2d0ae30594e5dc95c93d5

-felix
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Vlad K.]

On 2017-12-02 12:53, Carmel NY wrote:


I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working 
correctly. If not

it might be time for me to look at another OS for my network.



This has been mentioned several times as a "solution", but I really 
don't understand it. What other OS would be comparatively equal in this 
functionality? Other than Gentoo, you'd have hard time compiling 
individual packages, in a binary-precompiled-packages-based OS. Sure 
there are source DEBs or RPMs, but keeping track of custom built ones is 
not as easy as flipping a few options and running `poudriere bulk` every 
now and then.


Which then means, you can already use binary-precompiled packages here 
in FreeBSD. Even more so now with FLAVORS, as the packages will be built 
with some common option variations which would match exactly what's 
done, say in Debian based distros.


Honest question, I really am interested.


--
Vlad K.
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Carmel NY]

On Saturday, December 2, 2017 5:40 AM, Stari Karp stated:
> On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 01:12 +, Ben Woods wrote:
> > Hi Carmel,
> >
> > My understanding is that poudriere is the only package building system
> > that is officially supported by the portmgr, apart from raw make.
> >
> > There are many other nice ports building tools contributed by the
> > community, which each have their niche market, but the maintenance of
> > those tools is a community responsibility also.
> >
> > The announcement of impending flavors and breakage of package building
> > infrastructure that doesn’t support it was some time ago (I believe at
> > least 6 months), with a number of reminders since then. If a community
> >
> Yes, 6 months but IMO ports maintainers have still 2 or three months.
> They "pushed" flavors out to early. I do not why.

Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning how to use
an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a relatively small home network.

I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working correctly. If not
it might be time for me to look at another OS for my network.

Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
"portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has done a
pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which brings me
to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before that becomes
history also?

-- 
Carmel


___
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
+-+
devel/aws-sdk-cpp   | 1.3.1   | 1.3.15
+-+


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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Stari Karp]

On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 01:12 +, Ben Woods wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 at 2:36 am, Carmel NY 
> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > --
> > Carmel
> 
> 
> Hi Carmel,
> 
> My understanding is that poudriere is the only package building
> system that
> is officially supported by the portmgr, apart from raw make.
> 
> There are many other nice ports building tools contributed by the
> community, which each have their niche market, but the maintenance of
> those
> tools is a community responsibility also.
> 
> The announcement of impending flavors and breakage of package
> building
> infrastructure that doesn’t support it was some time ago (I believe
> at
> least 6 months), with a number of reminders since then. If a
> community
> 
Yes, 6 months but IMO ports maintainers have still 2 or three months.
They "pushed" flavors out to early. I do not why.

___
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"