Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
Kurt Abahar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Side note: I'm asking because I would definitely be
willing to contribute since this would make using
ports and packages together much easier.
I think the issue is one of building tens of thousands of applications and
ensuring they are valid. the process exists already in the ports build farm
(not sure what it is really called), but as you can see it lags behind
individual ports updates.
Anyway, as Chuck said , you can't always use a binary pkg as they may not suit
your needs.
I also think
that such a configuration would be a better default
for portsnap.
Portsnap's functionaty is to update the ports tree, not the binary packages. I
am not sure you'd want to have a 'pkgsnap' in all your machines.. that would
effectively mean you are providing a mirror for all built packages...
B
_
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
The freethinking of one age is the common sense of the next.
Matthew Arnold
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Thierry Thomas wrote: Le Ven 27 jul 07 à 3:44:32 +0200, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] écrivait : Kurt Abahar wrote: I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of time to compile them. Therefore, I'm trying to use packages as much as possible. After updating the ports tree using portsnap, portupgrade looks for packages that don't exist yet. Basically, my goal is to avoid this and have the ports tree update to a state for which packages have already been built. Ok, that's what I was afraid you were asking for. No such facility exists, and I don't imagine anyone creating one any time soon because it would be VERY hard to accomplish for a large number of reasons. Michel Talon's pkgupgrade attempt to solve this problem: see http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~talon/freebsdports.html#htoc19. Would it be feasible to use CVS tags to mark the state of the ports tree whenever a package is successfully rebuilt by the cluster and pushed out to the FTP servers? Something like 'PKGBUILD_I386' (similarly for other architectures) -- applied to each port to mark a successful pkg build, and generally to everything else (/usr/ports/Mk/*, etc) at the start of any package building run. Then cvs, csup and cvsup users at least have a fairly simple way to check out a ports tree that matches what's available in pkg form on the FTP servers. Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGqZYN8Mjk52CukIwRCLCMAJ9PkX+1Qb5LBklKrcEyXWeoeaDt5gCgjM0g cJHPk9g1qia3QeWemC9zRFo= =FFHZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized
On 2007-Jul-27 07:51:57 +0100, Matthew Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be feasible to use CVS tags to mark the state of the ports tree whenever a package is successfully rebuilt by the cluster and pushed out to the FTP servers? This would generate an immense amount of CVS repo churn and I'm not certain it would actually solve the problem. Keep in mind that it's not one tag per architecture but one tag per architecture per FreeBSD version (this is about 20 variants). Then cvs, csup and cvsup users at least have a fairly simple way to check out a ports tree that matches what's available in pkg form on the FTP servers. I believe the problem is more that there's a noticable delay between a port being updated and a matching set of packages being available. Even if you added a tag slip whenever a package was successfully built on each platform, there are still differential delays between the tagged ports tree being available from the varions CVSup/CTM servers and the packages being available from the FTP mirrors. I suspect you would also need an INDEX built to that tag - which means about 20 INDEX files instead of 3. -- Peter Jeremy pgp692VrrJpKO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:07:25 +1000
Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the problem is more that there's a noticable delay between a
port being updated and a matching set of packages being available.
At least for me, it hardly ever is an actual problem. I mean, building ports
from source can't be much easier (if some kinks are not left in the system, it
wouldn't be fun to use ;) ).
I know that not everyone has fast machines to build larger ports from source
(although pretty much any machine built over the last 6 years would do just
fine)... but it seems to me the ones who are facing some actual problems are
those with much older machines that, for some reason, have to keep every single
port up to date. Which is a much more reduce set than 'everyone' :)
for what is worth, if anyone wants a package and I have it handy on any of my
machines , drop me a line and I'll send it your way - you will have to trust of
course the binary files coming from me instead of waiting for the official,
reliable one from freebsd.org but hey, if you are in a rush and can't be
bothered building from src ... ;)
regards,
B
_
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
Produce great people, the rest will follow.
Elbert Hubbard
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized
--- Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 26, 2007, at 4:14 PM, Kurt Abahar wrote: I'm trying to find a way to keep the ports tree synchronized with that from which the latest packages in packages-6-stable were built. Is there a way to accomplish this? Sure, you probably want something like portupgrade -P or portupgrade -PP options. Note that if you have reason to select non-default options, you're better off building the ports locally to suit your preferences... -- -Chuck Thank you for the quick response. I have tried the portupgrade way, but unfortunately the packages lag behind ports the majority of the time. This led me to think that keeping the ports tree a little behind HEAD would be a better solution. However, I don't know how to get a hold of this lag time. Is it a few days, a few weeks or ... ? Perhaps there is a better way? Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized
Kurt Abahar wrote: --- Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you can describe in more detail what you're trying to accomplish. Leave out potential solutions, just describe what your goal is. I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of time to compile them. Therefore, I'm trying to use packages as much as possible. After updating the ports tree using portsnap, portupgrade looks for packages that don't exist yet. Basically, my goal is to avoid this and have the ports tree update to a state for which packages have already been built. Ok, that's what I was afraid you were asking for. No such facility exists, and I don't imagine anyone creating one any time soon because it would be VERY hard to accomplish for a large number of reasons. I apologize if I can't explain it very clearly, English isn't my native language. Your description was perfect, it was my understanding of it that needed help. :) Regards, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized
Kurt Abahar wrote: I have tried the portupgrade way, but unfortunately the packages lag behind ports the majority of the time. It's actually 100% of the time, and always will be. This led me to think that keeping the ports tree a little behind HEAD would be a better solution. However, I don't know how to get a hold of this lag time. Is it a few days, a few weeks or ... ? Maybe you can describe in more detail what you're trying to accomplish. Leave out potential solutions, just describe what your goal is. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized
On Jul 26, 2007, at 4:14 PM, Kurt Abahar wrote: I'm trying to find a way to keep the ports tree synchronized with that from which the latest packages in packages-6-stable were built. Is there a way to accomplish this? Sure, you probably want something like portupgrade -P or portupgrade -PP options. Note that if you have reason to select non-default options, you're better off building the ports locally to suit your preferences... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized
--- Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No such facility exists, and I don't imagine anyone creating one any time soon because it would be VERY hard to accomplish for a large number of reasons. If you don't mind, could you please elaborate on this? Side note: I'm asking because I would definitely be willing to contribute since this would make using ports and packages together much easier. I also think that such a configuration would be a better default for portsnap. Thank you Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized
--- Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you can describe in more detail what you're trying to accomplish. Leave out potential solutions, just describe what your goal is. I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of time to compile them. Therefore, I'm trying to use packages as much as possible. After updating the ports tree using portsnap, portupgrade looks for packages that don't exist yet. Basically, my goal is to avoid this and have the ports tree update to a state for which packages have already been built. I apologize if I can't explain it very clearly, English isn't my native language. Thank you Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized
Le Ven 27 jul 07 à 3:44:32 +0200, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] écrivait : Kurt Abahar wrote: I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of time to compile them. Therefore, I'm trying to use packages as much as possible. After updating the ports tree using portsnap, portupgrade looks for packages that don't exist yet. Basically, my goal is to avoid this and have the ports tree update to a state for which packages have already been built. Ok, that's what I was afraid you were asking for. No such facility exists, and I don't imagine anyone creating one any time soon because it would be VERY hard to accomplish for a large number of reasons. Michel Talon's pkgupgrade attempt to solve this problem: see http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~talon/freebsdports.html#htoc19. Regards, -- Th. Thomas. pgpfr6h9Ho93h.pgp Description: PGP signature
