Re: Ports support for RELENG_4 (Was: Re: Question about ports builds)
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:55:47PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: I think you're right about that, and my preferred method of operation for the ports that I maintain has been to try and test on RELENG_4 whenever possible, but not let not testing stop me from updating a port that works on 7-current and 6-stable. That's exactly what we are currently asking of the maintainers, yes. What I've found is that in those rare cases where there is an intersection between a port that is broken on RELENG_4 and users that care about that, I'm notified fairly promptly. If not by users, I usually get a krismail to the same effect. :) Right. At the moment I'm the standin for krismail, but the large number of failures on i386-4 has given me a little pause. I have asked a few maintainers for their opinion on what may be some common problems. I am actively working on this issue right now. I hesitate to send the krismails for i386-4 until I understand a little more what's going on (and possibly rerun it if we fix some things.) I have already done krismails about *-6 over the last 2 weeks. All that said, I'd love to officially drop support for RELENG_4, but I think that until we drop support for RELENG_4 in the base, dropping support for the ports would break faith with our users. At the same time, I think that some bit rot at the edges (of the seldom-used ports) is natural, and not to be mourned. We've already kind of said that on the portmgr policies page :-) We're also going to try to keep bsd.*.mk working on RELENG_4 at least as long as the secteam support for the branch. Note, however, that that deadline is also upcoming: January 31, 2007, according to http://www.freebsd.org/security/index.html#adv. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ports support for RELENG_4 (Was: Re: Question about ports builds)
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:55:47PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: The way you break those numbers down is interesting. On i386 there are 206 errors on -4, 277 on -5, 119 on -6, and 151 on -7. The key fact that I missed in my first reply to this is that the -5 run was killed because there was some problem with it trying to rebuild the certain ports over and over and over again. The run is not complete*, even so. The 277 number is completely artificial because of this; I expect the actual number to be in the 110-140 range. (I vaguely recall seeing the number from the previous, non-doomed, run, but I didn't save it off anywhere, and the bits are gone now.) There's been enough stuff going on in the past N days where this just completely slipped my mind. mcl * see that yellow vs. the green? yeah, I _said_ I wasn't a web design person you would want to hire. But the Y/N column is the key that drives the bgcolor. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about ports builds
Charlie Sorsby wrote: When one builds (or attempts to build) a port, does the Makefile know about dependencies and, if necessary, fetch and build any that are needed but not found? Yes and yes. [ ... ] PS It would be really helpful if each port/package at freebsd.org had an indication whether it requires the latest and greatest version of freeBSD. Put another way, it would be nice to know the oldest version of freeBSD it will work with. Perhaps that could be included in the Requires list on the page for the port/package. The people maintaining the ports attempt to support them on all of the active versions of FreeBSD, which means 4.10 or 4.11, 5.3 and later, 6.0 and later, and -CURRENT (what will become 7.0). Support for 4.x is going away soon, however, and it will become more common for new ports to not work on 4.x as time passes. For those ports that do not work with an older version like 4.x because of features added to more recent versions of the operating system, ports usually will indicate this in the Makefile. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about ports builds
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:07:55 -0400 Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charlie Sorsby wrote: When one builds (or attempts to build) a port, does the Makefile know about dependencies and, if necessary, fetch and build any that are needed but not found? Yes and yes. [ ... ] PS It would be really helpful if each port/package at freebsd.org had an indication whether it requires the latest and greatest version of freeBSD. Put another way, it would be nice to know the oldest version of freeBSD it will work with. Perhaps that could be included in the Requires list on the page for the port/package. The people maintaining the ports attempt to support them on all of the active versions of FreeBSD, which means 4.10 or 4.11, 5.3 and later, 6.0 and later, and -CURRENT (what will become 7.0). Support for 4.x is going away soon, however, and it will become more common for new ports to not work on 4.x as time passes. For those ports that do not work with an older version like 4.x because of features added to more recent versions of the operating system, ports usually will indicate this in the Makefile. Actually support for 4.x is gone already. We're only required to mark the ports broken or incorporate patches from the users. Of curse, we try to fix broken ports on 4-STABLE but that battle is going to be lost. -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD user Intellectual Property is nowhere near as valuable as Intellect Change is the essential process of all existence. -- Spock, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, stardate 5730.2 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question about ports builds
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:58:54PM +0300, Ion-Mihai IOnut Tetcu wrote: Actually support for 4.x is gone already. We're only required to mark the ports broken or incorporate patches from the users. Of curse, we try to fix broken ports on 4-STABLE but that battle is going to be lost. The latest results from the battlefield are not encouraging. I just finished another i386-4 build. Here are the stats of # of packages that completed versus whether the build is still running or not, compared to the slightly more than 15,000 possible packages: i386-4 10,167 (complete) i386-5 13,064 (still in progress) i386-6 13,599 (complete) i386-7 13,412 (still in progress) For comparison, a complete run of amd64-6 recently produced 12171 packages, and this was with kdebase3 and docbook-xsl not having finished successfully, which would have added many more. (I may try to restart it). The burden of trying to keep everything working on 4 i386 branches, 3 amd64 branches, and 3 sparc64 branches is too high at this point, especially with the degree of drift in such things as header files and base compiler between -4 and -5. Of course, most of these things can be fixed given sufficient maintainer and committer interest, but at some point you have to conclude that you're in the realm of diminishing returns. (pedantic note: we also try to keep two branches of ia64 running, at a lower priority. Even those may be in better shape than i386-4, currently.) Further note: there may be a recent checkin affecting the linux_base ports which completely skews this result; I am investigating. However. there are 206 legitimate build errors on i386-4 now; that doesn't include any port already marked as BROKEN. That's quite high. Those interested in further research can check out a new statistics display at http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/packagestats.html. (Among other things it will prove that you should not trust me to do web design, but never mind that.) mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fetching linux (was: Re: Question about ports builds)
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:38:23 -0500 Mark Linimon wrote: Further note: there may be a recent checkin affecting the linux_base ports which completely skews this result; I am investigating. However. there are 206 legitimate build errors on i386-4 now; that doesn't include any port already marked as BROKEN. That's quite high. I noticed a few days ago that the first site at FEDORA_CORE_SITES (limestone.uoregon.edu) is acting not relyable. Your logs says the same (most distributions were taken from the next site -- mirrors.kernel.org). I'd rather delete the first site from the list. WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fetching linux (was: Re: Question about ports builds)
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 02:45:02AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: I noticed a few days ago that the first site at FEDORA_CORE_SITES (limestone.uoregon.edu) is acting not reliable. Your logs says the same (most distributions were taken from the next site -- mirrors.kernel.org). I'd rather delete the first site from the list. Please send me a patch to either delete it, or move it down, and I'll review it and commit it. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ports support for RELENG_4 (Was: Re: Question about ports builds)
Mark Linimon wrote: The burden of trying to keep everything working on 4 i386 branches, 3 amd64 branches, and 3 sparc64 branches is too high at this point, especially with the degree of drift in such things as header files and base compiler between -4 and -5. Of course, most of these things can be fixed given sufficient maintainer and committer interest, but at some point you have to conclude that you're in the realm of diminishing returns. I think you're right about that, and my preferred method of operation for the ports that I maintain has been to try and test on RELENG_4 whenever possible, but not let not testing stop me from updating a port that works on 7-current and 6-stable. What I've found is that in those rare cases where there is an intersection between a port that is broken on RELENG_4 and users that care about that, I'm notified fairly promptly. If not by users, I usually get a krismail to the same effect. :) Thus, things in my little world don't stay broken for too long. All that said, I'd love to officially drop support for RELENG_4, but I think that until we drop support for RELENG_4 in the base, dropping support for the ports would break faith with our users. At the same time, I think that some bit rot at the edges (of the seldom-used ports) is natural, and not to be mourned. there are 206 legitimate build errors on i386-4 now; that doesn't include any port already marked as BROKEN. That's quite high. The way you break those numbers down is interesting. On i386 there are 206 errors on -4, 277 on -5, 119 on -6, and 151 on -7. I would be interested to know what the percentage of overlap is ... in other words what percentage of the 119 ports broken on -6 also comprise the broken ports on the other releases. Based on a cursory examination of the errors on -4, I'd estimate that percentage to be quite high. Assuming that it's 90%, that means that 99 ports are uniquely broken on -4, which is a very small percentage of the packages that actually built (0.097%). IOW, there is actually less bit rot (in terms of unintended brokenness) than I would have expected. 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]
