Re: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
Steve Wills wrote: We are planning to deprecate use of portsnap in ports. The reasons are as follows (in no particular order): * Portsnap doesn't support quarterly branches, even years after quarterly branches were created and changed to the default for non-HEAD packages. * Portsnap doesn't seem to save disk space compared to svn or git, if you count the metadata (stored in /var/db/portsnap by default) and you do an apples-to-apples comparison of svn or git without history and ignoring possible ZFS compression. That is, you use "svn export" or git "clone --depth 1", you see this disk usage: 342Msvnexport 426Mgit 477Mportsnap * Portsnap also doesn't work offline which git does. With git, you can also easily add the history by running "git pull --unshallow" * This migration away from portsnap fits well with the planned migration to git. * Also based on the patches we've seen in Bugzilla for some time, usage of portsnap causes folks to too easily accidentally submit patches to Bugzilla which don't apply easily. * Since portsnap doesn't support quarterly branches, it often causes users to build on the wrong branch or end up with mismatched packages. That is, they install packages from quarterly via pkg, then want to customize so run portsnap and build from head, which can cause problems, as we often see. Even when this doesn't happen, it adds to troubleshooting to verify that it didn't. We are aware people have gotten used to portsnap, but believe: * People should be able to easily use svnlite in base or git from pkgs. (Very few people seem to actually use WITHOUT_SVNLITE). * There is also the possibility of falling back to fetching a tar or zip from https://cgit-beta.freebsd.org/ports/ although this does make updating harder. How it will be done, in order: * Update poudriere to use svn by default. This is already done: https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/pull/764 https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/commit/bd68f30654e2a8e965fbdc09aad238c8bf5cdc10 * Update docs not to mention portsnap. This is already in progress: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25800 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25801 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25803 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25805 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25808 https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/363798 Many thanks to the folks who have worked and are working on this! * Make WITHOUT_PORTSNAP default in base. Currently not certain when this will happen. May not happen before 13.0, but hopefully it will. * Eventually, portsnap servers will see low enough usage they can be disabled. We welcome any constructive feedback. All input would be heard, and if the plans need to be amended, we will come back to you with the amended plan in a couple of weeks. This process will take some time and hopefully won't be too disruptive to anyone's usual workflow. Steve (with portmgr@ hat) I seems this is a done deal as changes are already being done now. So the real question is, when is the portsnap utility going to be removed from the base system? Will it happen in 12.2 or 13.0? I maintain ports that use the portsnap utility. One is currently going through a maintenance cycle right now. Should the use of portsnap be removed from the port now? ___ 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: good gui bit-torrent client?
Yuri Pankov wrote: On 29 Feb 2020, at 22:39, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: Robert Huff wrote on 2020/02/29 00:49: I used to use azureus/vuze, but it hasn't been maintained is quite a while. So I changed to deluge ... which now has a dependency semi-permanently BROKEN. What can people recommend as a replacement? I used uTurrent in Windows times. When I switched to FreeBSD on my desktop I used Vuze / Azureus. But it was resource hungry and at some point in time no longer works for me. Then I tried qBittorrent and I am very happy with it. Simple, stable, good looking with my KDE. net-p2p/qbittorrent is my choice Same here, using it on FreeBSD/macOS/Windows and not seeing any issues (even without KDE on FreeBSD). What is good website to search for torrents? ___ 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: What is the actual syntax used to FLAVOR ports?
Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 1:27 PM Chris wrote: OK I know FLAVOR is an evolving concept. But I can not find the FLAVOR documentation. Only references in the porters handbook. What I think needs to be available is an entire list of flavor tags for all (port) categories. For example; make FLAVOR=python27 returns the error use py27. OK now I know how to flavor, and build python flavors. But what of Perl? make FLAVOR=perl2.8. Nope. How about make FLAVOR=p5-28, and so it goes... Does there exist a definitive list of flavors? It'd also be valuable for defining defaults in make.conf(5) Thanks! --Chris The problem is not having a clear understanding of what a FLAVOR is and when it is used. FLAVORS are generally a way to deal with the problem of incompatible versions and Python is the poster child. Python2 and Python3 are two version of a VERY popular language that have significant syntax incompatibilities. While a program written for gcc-4.2 should work fine when compiled with gcc-7, it is VERY unlikely that a program written for Python2 will work with Python3. While the changes needed are often fairly straight forward, they have to be made. The result is a requirement of having both interpreters installed and two packages of of most Python libraries built from a single source. Adding FLAVORS for a port is an expensive operation and is never lightly approved by the ports management team as it adds a great deal of complexity and both human and machine overhead. Requests to FLAVOR a port are carefully reviewed and will only be approved with adequate justification. In the case of Perl, no attempt to flavor it has been needed. Most Perl packages (p5-*) will work with any of the three available ports. In most cases they may be installed and continue to work across versions with no changes. Python (py-) ports MUST be reinstalled to move from Python2 to Python3. Some have not had required changes to work with Python3 made and, initially, almost none did. Some have now been written with no support for Python2. All of this has to be properly handled by the package building system and it is not at all trivial. As of today, I believe the only FLAVORed ports are those using emacs, lazarus, php, and, of course, python. By "using", I mean that the port Makefile includes "USE_PYTHON" or similar USE_ definitions of the other languages. (Yes, emacs is not a language, but elisp, the core of emacs, is and lazarus is an IDE for Pascal.) I'm sorry of this is not entirely clear, but I hope it helps and I hope it is all correct. I may have worded some of it poorly. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 wow the above reply is not how I remember how things were envisioned when this flavor function was first talked about. Having to get permission first and being limited to languages was never talked about and not at all a requirement. It was envisioned as a way to per can a set of different defaults so a package with pre canned defaults would be auto built in the ports system that is different from the basic defaults. ON the subject of documentation about how to set up flavors for a port is totally lacking at this point. You know the old saying, developers are good programmers but are terrible at documenting their work if they do it at all. So with that in mind do your own thing following what you see for flavored languages as a loosely followed guide. ___ 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: A port like pi-hole?
@lbutlr wrote: I’ve been running pi-hole on my home LAN and would like to run something like it on my FreeBSD machines as well. There isn’t a pi-hole port, but is there something like it that lets you easily setup blacklists to block DNS queries for adware/malware servers? Look at port dns2blackhole ___ 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"
Please close bug 238192
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238192 ___ 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: Is there a way to build only the port from source, and install dependencies from packages with the make command?
David Wolfskill wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:35:21AM -0700, Yuri wrote:
Sometimes instructions to build some port from source are needed. "cd
/usr/ports/{caregory}/{port-name} && make" rebuilds everything from
source, including dependencies.
Is there an easy way to make it install missing dependencies with pkg,
without listing them? I couldn't find such feature.
I won't claim it's especially "easy," but within the port directory --
prior to attempting to build the port -- one can run:
make missing
to find out what are needed. Given that list, one could
conceivably install the requisite packages.
Caveat: I have not actually done this.
Peace,
david
I do this every new release.
I build the ports tree with just the ports I want to compile and just
the ports tree items required to perform the real compile. All those
massive ports files are not contained in my ports tree.
make missing on the port I want to compile to get dependencies
them pkg install for each dependence followed by the ports compile of
the selected port
___
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: vulnerabilities bogus error
Dimitry Andric wrote: On 14 Dec 2018, at 22:40, Ernie Luzar wrote: Trying to update my port. During make install get a bunch of bogus error messages about the port having vulnerabilities. I know this to not be the case. The first message says pkg-static; unable to open vulnxml file (null): Invalid argument This is a new fresh install of RELEASE 12.0. How do I manually fetch this vulnxml file or where should I "touch" to create it? Run "pkg audit -F". -Dimitry Yep that took care of the problem. Thank you. ___ 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: vulnerabilities bogus error
Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote: https://vuxml.freebsd.org/freebsd/vuln.xml.bz2 What path is this file suppose to be uncompressed into? ___ 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"
vulnerabilities bogus error
Trying to update my port. During make install get a bunch of bogus error messages about the port having vulnerabilities. I know this to not be the case. The first message says pkg-static; unable to open vulnxml file (null): Invalid argument This is a new fresh install of RELEASE 12.0. How do I manually fetch this vulnxml file or where should I "touch" to create it? ___ 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: packages and base jails
Michael W. Lucas wrote: Hi, I'm writing a book on jails and am looking for BCP. I'd like to present either "This is the approved solution and should work" or "these are the gotchas with any of these, choose your pain." Folks want base jails to include packages, but also want to install additional packages--which won't happen if /usr/local is mounted read-only in the base jail. Trawling around the Net I see a couple options. Both involve the primary jail using a different package repo. The overlay jail uses the standard package repo. 1) primary jail uses a repo with PREFIX=/usr/pkg or /opt. Works in my simple use cases once I set ldconfig directories in rc.conf, but I'm told programs like pkgconfig can go sideways. 2) base jail repo uses with PREFIX=/. Utterly violates separation of base and pkg, but everything should find everything out of the box. Again, seems to work in my wimpy use cases. Is there an option that should work? Or is a matter of choosing between horrors? Thanks, ==ml I use a common base jail mounted read only and the jail /usr/local & /etc mounted r/w. From the jail console bootstrap pkg and every thing works just like on the host. Now the ports tree is totally different, I create the ports tree normally on the host. And then if I need the ports tree in a jail I issue the mv command to move from host to jail and when its not needed any more I mv it back to the host. Only one ports tree for host and all jails. Haven't had the need to do that since new pkg works so good now. Saw this is how qjail does it so used that concept in my own manual jail system. ___ 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"
List of which pkg's have been downloaded
Goal = I want to get statistics from the pkg system mirrored servers containing a count of how many times a pkg has been downloaded. First of all, are these statistics currently available? Who should I contact about getting these statistics? If not currently available, who should I contact about getting the information needed to design a method to capture these statistics? I am willing to do the coding and testing to make this happen. ___ 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"
how to code Makefile to add script to periodic/daily
Searched the porters handbook and can not find any info about how to code the Makefile for adding a file to /usr/local/etc/periodic/daily directory. Was hoping for a canned macro but no joy. Can someone please point me to documentation or provide an example. 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"
Makefile RUN_DEPENDS= option
Have a simple port that needs wget to work. I want RUN_DEPENDS to first check if wget is already installed, IE: is the running executable in the search path whether installed as a compiled port or installed as a package and if so bypass any more wget processing. If running executable not found then to auto install using pkg version and if not found there to do port compile method. How would I code that? ___ 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"
openssl problem
I do "pkg install openssl" that works ok. But from that point I get 2 different messages at port make time depending on the port being installed. /usr/ports/sysutils/qjail >make install clean /!\ WARNING /!\ You have security/openssl installed but do not have DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl set in your make.conf Which stops if I add DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl to /etc/make.conf Get this error all the time, even with /etc/make.com populated with DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl /usr/ports/www/links >make install clean make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ssl.mk" line 77: You are using an unsupported SSL provider openssl I see this needing 2 solutions. 1. The openssl port needs to be changes so it populates /etc/make.conf with DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl 2. The /usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ssl.mk" line 77 needs to be changed to resolve this bogus error message. Any thoughts on these solutions? ___ 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: Porters Handbook section 4.4
Benjamin Kaduk wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:23:58AM -0700, Russell Haley wrote: Here is chapter 1 in an odt since it's a new work and I wanted to bang it out without formatting. I'll add it to the sources after I get a good start on Chapter 2 and post a patch. I assume phabricator the preferred tool for commenting on documents? No harm in banging it out without formatting (nothing wrong with plain-old-UTF-8, even). Phabricator is the preferred tool, yes. It will take me a few days to have a chance to look, most likely. Thanks again, Ben Have nothing to add here, but this post peaked my interest about what your talking about. What is Phabricator? What is its use in generating doc markup file for handbook changes? ___ 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"
pkg for dovecot2 missing
This new pkg repository is missing dovecot2. How can I target the previous repository, I know its there. ___ 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, portupgrade, etc
Michael W. Lucas wrote: Hi, I'm doing tech edits on the new edition of "Absolute FreeBSD," and stumbled into what's apparently a delicate topic. Some of my reviewers are happy I included portmaster in the book. Some reviewers beg me not to include it. Unfortunately, people will be reading af3e and considering it definitive for the next several years. So I have to get a feel for where things are going. :-/ I've read a couple threads on portmaster's current problems/growing pains and its looming difficulty with forthcoming flavors. I've been a happy portmaster user for many years now. All things being equal, if its future is still being debated I'm inclined to keep it in the book. Poudriere really needs its own small book. Yes, you can do simple poudriere installs, but once you start covering it properly the docs quickly expand. My notes alone are longer than my af3e chapter limits. (I'll probably publish "FreeBSD Packaging Misery^WMastery" in 2018). Truly, I'm not looking to start a flame war here. I only want a bit of guidance on The Future... ==ml Here's my take on that. The future direction has already been decided by the FreeBSD leaders 2 years ago with their development of a better pkg system. The package system with flavors will cover 90% of the user community needs. The remaining user's requirements are edge cases. Tools like portmaster and portupgrad and even the native ports system usage on personal machines will fad away. The ports system will mature into the development system in the path to get things into the package system. You adding details on these port system tools will only give the reader the impression that they are still popular and being actively supported thus working against the intended direction Freebsd package system is headed. Making it even harder to get users to move forward. Don't let the few old school die hearts who are afraid of any change and make the most noise influence you. There will always be edge case user who think their needs out weight what is best for the group. Remember that your updated book will become a bible for many years and many readers. Don't include items that are now on the edge of being replaced. Another candidate is JAILs IE: the old way of jail definition was in rc.conf the new way being jail.conf. The jail.conf method was introduction was at RELEASE 9.0 and here its 11.1 and still the old school users fight to retain both ways. Hoping that with 12.0, support for jail definition in rc.conf will be totally removed. One last though. The problem with the Freebsd handbook is that it reads like a list of reminder notes. The reader is expected to already have a well defined understanding of the subject being read about. The past 2 years a great amount of effort has gone into bring the handbook up to date with the current status of the operating system. But it is a very far cry from a teaching aid. Please take the time to rework the original "Absolute FreeBSD" content into something that is usable as a teaching book. You must assume that the only thing the reader knows about Freebsd is how to spell the word Freebsd and build the content from there. Good luck. ___ 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: [HEADUP] FLAVORS landing.
Mathieu Arnold wrote: Hi, snip All this information, and more to come are in the first link to our wiki in the bottom block. A road map is in the second link. There are no links with this email. Do not know what you mean by "our wiki". Please be so kind as to provide some links to get us slow people on the correct track to come up to speed. Thank you very much. ___ 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"
openssl is flagged as unsupported on unbound make install
Just svn the unbound port to get most current version. Also svn update of port system make and build files Issuing /user/ports/dsn/unbound > make install I get this message "/usr/ports/Mk/Users/ssl.mk" line 77: You are using an unsupported SSL provider openssl Just installed 11.1 & openssl pkg on this machine 2 weeks ago so openssl must be current. Pkg info says openssl-1.0.21,1 Is this a problem I can fix myself in the ports tree or do I need to report it as a bug to the unbound port? I was trying to do a "make config" to see if there was a compile time option to enable the "root zone" function which seems to be missing from the pkg version. Also the "unbound-control" command is not using the port default location for the unbound.conf file. Last but not least, there seems to be some crossover between the OS built-in local_unbound and the port version files. ___ 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: standard locations for port files
Adam Weinberger wrote: On 31 Aug, 2017, at 9:07, Ernie Luzar wrote: Lets say I have a product that I want to port to Freebsd. Were is the standard location for the log file and PID file. Would it be in /usr/local/etc/product/product.log /usr/local/etc/product/product.pid or /var/log/product.log /var/run/product.pid It should be in /var. Many users keep /usr/local mounted read-only. # Adam Lets say /usr/local/etc/product/ is chrooted and the only thing in it is the product.conf. Is there any security benefit for chrooting that directory path? ___ 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"
standard locations for port files
Lets say I have a product that I want to port to Freebsd. Were is the standard location for the log file and PID file. Would it be in /usr/local/etc/product/product.log /usr/local/etc/product/product.pid or /var/log/product.log /var/run/product.pid ___ 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 Port: void-zones-tools-1.0.2
Installed the port today. No manual included or any information about how to use it. The port really should have man pages and a pkg-message file containing info about where to look for usage info. ___ 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"
How to get number of times a package has been downloaded?
I would like to see the activity of the packaged version of my port. By activity I mean the number of times it's been download since it was first packaged or at least since the last quarterly re-packaging. Is there a FreeBSD web page where this type of information is posted? ___ 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: [SOLVED] How to create a port only for specific FreeBSD releases
Adam Weinberger wrote:
On 27 Feb, 2017, at 9:07, Andrew Hotlab wrote:
From: Andrew Hotlab
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:37 PM
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: How to create a port only for specific FreeBSD releases
Hi to all, I'm trying to make a port which installs only a couple of simple
scripts
(thus NO_BUILD, NO_ARCH, and void MASTER_SITES and DISTFILES...).
Since these scripts are designed to run on FreeBSD 10.0 and newer, I'd like to
know if there is a way to prevent the port from installing on older FreeBSD
releases. In the Porter's Handbook I found this paragraph, but it seems
regarding
only ported app's source code:
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/porting-versions.html
Sorry, just found by myself. I included these lines before the do-install
section:
.include
.if ${OSVERSION} < 1000100
IGNORE= runs only on FreeBSD 10.0 and newer
.endif
It's really not needed at all. Nothing below 10.3 is supported, and the ports
system will complain already. Please don't include that block in your port.
# Adam
Thats not true. I have port version just for 9.x and even today I still
see the source file the port fetches still being downloaded.
It has
IGNORE_FreeBSD_10= and IGNORE_FreeBSD_11= in it's Makefile.
Best you have IGNORE_FreeBSD_9= in your Makefile to be sure you get
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: [SOLVED] How to create a port only for specific FreeBSD releases
Andrew Hotlab wrote:
From: Andrew Hotlab
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:37 PM
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: How to create a port only for specific FreeBSD releases
Hi to all, I'm trying to make a port which installs only a couple of simple
scripts
(thus NO_BUILD, NO_ARCH, and void MASTER_SITES and DISTFILES...).
Since these scripts are designed to run on FreeBSD 10.0 and newer, I'd like to
know if there is a way to prevent the port from installing on older FreeBSD
releases. In the Porter's Handbook I found this paragraph, but it seems
regarding
only ported app's source code:
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/porting-versions.html
Sorry, just found by myself. I included these lines before the do-install
section:
.include
.if ${OSVERSION} < 1000100
IGNORE= runs only on FreeBSD 10.0 and newer
.endif
IGNORE_FreeBSD_9= This version only for FreeBSD 10+
___
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: Custom base jails for ZFS replication
Randy Westlund wrote: Is there a jail management tool that lets you install packages in a base jail, and share that with multiple thin jails? I want to deploy many thin jails across multiple servers, and be able to update both the base system and ports in a base jail and then ZFS replicate that to the base jails on the production servers. I'd like the thin jails to only contain my customer-specific application data, so I don't have to manually update all of them. I don't see any way to do this with ezjail or iocage. Does anyone else have a deployment like this? Your meaning of basejail and thin jail is not clear. If by basejail you mean the running binaries directories of the OS which are unllfs'ed and shared with many thinjails being the /local directory tree + /etc, them yes. Using qjail you create a single basejail and a templetejail using command "qjail install". Them create a thin jail called seedjail. To this seedjail you pkg install all the common ports you want available to all your other jails. Them create each new thinjail using the seedjail as input. After you have created all your thinjails you can move them to what ever other machines as long as the target machines are running the same base version of OS as the machine you created your thinjails on. This also goes for the basejail. Take note, The packages you install into the seedjail have no user application data. If the production thinjails have unique application user data you will have to copy this user data to the corresponding new thinjails. Lets say you only run apache servers. That each machine runs 5 different jailed apache servers the only difference being the zfs userdata directory tree accessed by each of those jailed apache servers. With qjail you create the basejail them a single standard seedjail. Create 5 apache thinjails using the seedjail as input. Then use qjail config function to add a mount zfs filesystem jail(8) parameter for each unique apache thinjail. To move this qjail environment to different machines you would have to copy qjail's internal control files in /usr/local/etc/qjail/* to the target machine overriding what ever is there already. The existing zfs user data would move forward being untouched by the jail update you created on the update machine. The above is based on all the different machines all assign the thinjails the same ip address. If this is not so then use the qjail config function to change the thinjails unique ip address for each machine. The qjail man page has great documentation on usage and seed jails are covered in the documentation. *** Now as I re-read yourr post I see that your usage of basejail/thinjail is misleading. What you may really want is a fulljail; ie; complete copy of the os system with selected ports installed that at jail start time mounts your unique separate userdate zfs filesystems. This can be achieved using jail(8). There are no canned utilities that I know of that work this way. The jail-primer port gives great info on jail(8) usage and includes scripts that you can use as a base to grow your own automated jail environment from. ___ 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"
ports long description error
Was reviewing ports here https://www.freebsd.org/ports/multimedia.html and many of the "Long description" links generated the following error. An Exception Has Occurred An illegal value was provided for the "revision" parameter. HTTP Response Status 400 Bad Request Think someone should take a look into this matter. cx88 ffmpegthumbnailer-2.0.9_1 emby ___ 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: Removing documentation
Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: I'm bringing this to the attention of the ports community to try to come up with a consensus about how to handle existing documentation for ageing packages, in this case portmaster. This bug report suggests removing the documentation for portmaster because it is out of date and no longer maintained. 3 or 4 years ago the handbook never recommended any port. Only utility tools contained in the base release were allowed to be documented in the handbook. This standard should be enforced again. The tool portmaster and ezjail should be removed from the handbook or be included as part of the base system release. ___ 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"
links port Makefile logic error
___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: www/firefox really depends on security/openssl?
Carmel NY wrote: On Wed, 13 May 2015 07:41:55 -0400, Ernie Luzar stated: I am having the same problem. Many things missing from the base openssl that are in the port openssl. Installing the port version only complicates things by not knowing which directory structure is really in play. My suggestion is just have the base OS source contain everything the openssl port installs. Basically, that is what I stated. Simply have the "base" version mirror the "port's" version. Another, perhaps even simpler method would be to have the "port's" version [overwrite|replace] the base system if a user decides to install the port's version. A new user could be given the option of installing the older "base" system or the newer "port's" version when first installing FreeBSD. This problem is NOT unsolvable; however, for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to be getting any traction either. It sort of reminds me of a problem with the "slapd" rc file that has never been ratified. Maybe it takes a PR to shine light on this problem as the subject of this post is no longer valid ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: www/firefox really depends on security/openssl?
Carmel NY wrote: On Wed, 13 May 2015 01:24:35 +0200, Dr. Peter Voigt stated: [Truncated] The most reliable method to eliminate this, for lack of a better word "bullshit", would be for FreeBSD to keep the "base" system "openssl" version" up-to-date. It is apparent to even the most casual observer that the present method of allowing to different versions of such an important application on the same system without a fail proof method of choosing which version to use as you have demonstrated is truly counter productive to a "stable" environment. Assuming that the FreeBSD developers won't do it, perhaps you might investigate on how to replace the "base openssl" with the "port's openssl" version and eliminate the problem completely. By the way, I have run into this same nonsense myself. I am having the same problem. Many things missing from the base openssl that are in the port openssl. Installing the port version only complicates things by not knowing which directory structure is really in play. My suggestion is just have the base OS source contain everything the openssl port installs. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
