Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>
> If you don't have cvsup installed, run this command: #
> pkg_add -r cvsup-without-gui
It is better to use all ports or all packages so either do:
>>>
>>> Why do you say that? Do you know of unresolved issues
>>> regarding the interactions of port versus package
>>> installations? Any references?
>>
>> I am not currently aware of any conflicts but the fact that they
>> have historical been more frequent then inter-port or
>> inter-package conflicts leads to the conculsion... unlike either
>> of the above they are harder to troubleshoot
>
> The only problems I've ever seen with installing packages is that
> at times the package-building farm gets a bit behind, when you
> might need to build a desired newly updated port from source, and
> that in some cases a package built with default options may not be
> what you want. php5 is one example of the latter, as the default
> options do not include mod_php5 which (I gather?) is why most
> people install php at all.
The main issue is assuming that certain things are installed because
that is the way the developers recommend it then you install a package
and find out that the maintainer had different ideas. A very good
current example is boost vs. boost-python in regards to the
requirements for deluge and miro respectivally. An other example is
the entire Java tree.
>
> And yes there are some ports that don't have packages for licencing
> etc reasons, though I can't recall ever having to install one of
> those.
I am the author (but not the maintainer) of such a port
(devel/thistest) and there is often very legit reasons for not
allowing packages... for example my license requires explicit
agreement before you can download the source and/or binaries (because
it has specific provisions regarding execution vs. source usage [see
my blog for more details...
http://www.flosoft-systems.com/flosoft_systems_community/blogs/aryeh/index.php]).
>
> Not everyone has fast hardware and good bandwidth, so installing
> from packages for really big ports - such as X, KDE or Gnome,
> j{dk,re}, OO and such - is almost mandatory on smaller systems.
> Release CDs install at least the former three as packages of
> course, for obvious reasons, and at least around release times, up
> to date packages can be expected.
My experience has been every time I have attempted to make the two
play together well it blows up. It has been so long since I have used
a package vs. a port I can't site a specific example.
>
> I just think saying "it's better to use all ports or all packages"
> is poor and maybe misleading advice, particularly expressed without
> 'IMHO', as it implies problems that RE should know about -
> especially right now!
This is more of a long term issue that is being worked on by several
groups including the "ports 2.0" team that I am member of [see long
set threads in -ports@ regarding ports system re-engineering]... much
of the stuff I hint at in this thread is better spelled out there.
>
cd /usr/ports/net/cvsup-without-gui make install clean
or after doing the above do a pkg_delete -a (assuming that
your working with a clean machine [no ports/packages
instaleld except cvsup]
>>>
>>> Why wouldn't pkg_delete -a remove your just-installed
>>> cvsup-without-gui?
>>
>> Sorry for not being clear I meant before the reinstall (besides
>> make install would fail if you hadn't done a pkg_delete -a)
>
> Hmm ok - thought you might be suggesting that port installs don't
> update the package database in /var/db/pkg just the same as pkg_add
> does.
>
> For more info on the supfile, look at this file on your
> FreeBSD machine: /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile
>
> Preferring cvsup to portsnap is kinda like preferring vim
> over emacs... It's a holy war and the vi/cvsup side uses
> less disk space.
Actually it is not like that at all.. cvsup/csup is the
officially preferred method and any other method is a short
cut of some kind...
>>>
>>> Please provide a reference URL to 'official' support of this
>>> claim?
>>
>> This is a case of actions by the developer community speaks
>> louder then words:
>>
>> 1. Csup is in the base system thus obvious preferred to either
>> cvsup or portsnap
>
> % which portsnap /usr/sbin/portsnap
>
>> 2. C(v)sup is more universal 3. The only way to maintain an
>> official local repo is via cvsup
>
> You're talking about updating sources, ports and CVS too. We were
> just talking about maintaining the ports tree. I sense nothing
> 'official'.
To me the "official" method should be the most general... and except
for my mistake that portsnap is not in the base system it is no where
near as general as c[v]sup namely portsnap is a kludge designed
for people who are to lazy to learn cvsup
>
many of them have very subtle issues that the typical
Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> > > > If you don't have cvsup installed, run this command: # pkg_add -r
> > > > cvsup-without-gui
> > >
> > > It is better to use all ports or all packages so either do:
> >
> > Why do you say that? Do you know of unresolved issues regarding the
> > interactions of port versus package installations? Any references?
>
> I am not currently aware of any conflicts but the fact that they have
> historical been more frequent then inter-port or inter-package
> conflicts leads to the conculsion... unlike either of the above they
> are harder to troubleshoot
The only problems I've ever seen with installing packages is that at
times the package-building farm gets a bit behind, when you might need
to build a desired newly updated port from source, and that in some
cases a package built with default options may not be what you want.
php5 is one example of the latter, as the default options do not include
mod_php5 which (I gather?) is why most people install php at all.
And yes there are some ports that don't have packages for licencing etc
reasons, though I can't recall ever having to install one of those.
Not everyone has fast hardware and good bandwidth, so installing from
packages for really big ports - such as X, KDE or Gnome, j{dk,re}, OO
and such - is almost mandatory on smaller systems. Release CDs install
at least the former three as packages of course, for obvious reasons,
and at least around release times, up to date packages can be expected.
I just think saying "it's better to use all ports or all packages" is
poor and maybe misleading advice, particularly expressed without 'IMHO',
as it implies problems that RE should know about - especially right now!
> > > cd /usr/ports/net/cvsup-without-gui
> > > make install clean
> > >
> > > or after doing the above do a pkg_delete -a (assuming that your
> > > working with a clean machine [no ports/packages instaleld except cvsup]
> >
> > Why wouldn't pkg_delete -a remove your just-installed cvsup-without-gui?
>
> Sorry for not being clear I meant before the reinstall (besides make
> install would fail if you hadn't done a pkg_delete -a)
Hmm ok - thought you might be suggesting that port installs don't update
the package database in /var/db/pkg just the same as pkg_add does.
> > > > For more info on the supfile, look at this file on your FreeBSD
> > > > machine: /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile
> > > >
> > > > Preferring cvsup to portsnap is kinda like preferring vim over
> > > > emacs... It's a holy war and the vi/cvsup side uses less disk
> > > > space.
> > >
> > > Actually it is not like that at all.. cvsup/csup is the officially
> > > preferred method and any other method is a short cut of some kind...
> >
> > Please provide a reference URL to 'official' support of this claim?
>
> This is a case of actions by the developer community speaks louder
> then words:
>
> 1. Csup is in the base system thus obvious preferred to either cvsup
> or portsnap
% which portsnap
/usr/sbin/portsnap
> 2. C(v)sup is more universal
> 3. The only way to maintain an official local repo is via cvsup
You're talking about updating sources, ports and CVS too. We were just
talking about maintaining the ports tree. I sense nothing 'official'.
> > > many of them have very subtle issues that the typical end-user should
> > > not notice but should be aware of...
> >
> > Issues such as? And what other alternatives to c*sup and portsnap exist
> > for ports tree management?
>
> I can think of several off the top my head:
>
> 1. Ftp ports.tar.gz and unpack
Sure. Plus make fetchindex or such.
> 2. Maintain a local repo like I do
Clearly not a job for portsnap :)
> 3. Use portupgrade in conjunction with the above
>
> I was specifically refeering to the 3rd option when I said there where
> subtle issues. Speicfically the way "make install" (recursive) and
> "portupgrade -a" calculate the build order can lead to some issues
> (like compiling the default OPTIONS before asking the user to select
> OPTIONS)
It seems that here you're confusing port maintenance and upgrading
tools (portupgrade, portmaster etc and/or make install) with a choice
between c*sup and portsnap for maintaining the ports _tree_ and INDEX,
which is precisely all that portsnap is designed to do, and does well.
Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but there seems to have been a flurry of
deprecation approaching folklore re installing from packages recently,
and I can't see that it's based on anything much factual. My last big
portupgrade on this 300MHz 5.5-STABLE system began with 'portupgrade
-anPP' which fetched the vast bulk of a hundred or so ports as packages,
saving me many hours - if not days - of building. YM probably V.
cheers, Ian
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/f
Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
Gerard wrote: On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:41:35 -0500 "Aryeh M. Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] 1. Csup is in the base system thus obvious preferred to either cvsup or portsnap Correct me if I am wrong; however, I thought that 'portsnap' was part of the base system. Yes, portsnap is part of the base system, as is csup. csup and cvsup are equivalent unless you need to create a local repository (i.e. getting the RCS ,v files) which is not required for anyone simply wishing to use the ports tree for building apps. This feature is only available in cvsup. As for the OP, the tag to get the ports for FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE would be: RELEASE_6_2_0 This is mentioned in the handbook, http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvs-tags.html (the paragraph text in A.7.2) but may be it is not clear enough, since all the examples that follow refer to the src tree tags (which start with RELENG) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:41:35 -0500 "Aryeh M. Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > 1. Csup is in the base system thus obvious preferred to either cvsup > or portsnap Correct me if I am wrong; however, I thought that 'portsnap' was part of the base system. -- Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ... F. H. Wales (1936) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > > > > > If you don't have cvsup installed, run this command: # pkg_add -r > > > cvsup-without-gui > > > > It is better to use all ports or all packages so either do: > > Why do you say that? Do you know of unresolved issues regarding the > interactions of port versus package installations? Any references? I am not currently aware of any conflicts but the fact that they have historical been more frequent then inter-port or inter-package conflicts leads to the conculsion... unlike either of the above they are harder to troubleshoot > > > cd /usr/ports/net/cvsup-without-gui > > make install clean > > > > or after doing the above do a pkg_delete -a (assuming that your > > working with a clean machine [no ports/packages instaleld except cvsup] > > Why wouldn't pkg_delete -a remove your just-installed cvsup-without-gui? Sorry for not being clear I meant before the reinstall (besides make install would fail if you hadn't done a pkg_delete -a) > > > > For more info on the supfile, look at this file on your FreeBSD > > > machine: /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile > > > > > > Preferring cvsup to portsnap is kinda like preferring vim over > > > emacs... It's a holy war and the vi/cvsup side uses less disk > > > space. > > > > Actually it is not like that at all.. cvsup/csup is the officially > > preferred method and any other method is a short cut of some kind... > > Please provide a reference URL to 'official' support of this claim? This is a case of actions by the developer community speaks louder then words: 1. Csup is in the base system thus obvious preferred to either cvsup or portsnap 2. C(v)sup is more universal 3. The only way to maintain an official local repo is via cvsup > > > many of them have very subtle issues that the typical end-user should > > not notice but should be aware of... > > Issues such as? And what other alternatives to c*sup and portsnap exist > for ports tree management? I can think of several off the top my head: 1. Ftp ports.tar.gz and unpack 2. Maintain a local repo like I do 3. Use portupgrade in conjunction with the above I was specifically refeering to the 3rd option when I said there where subtle issues. Speicfically the way "make install" (recursive) and "portupgrade -a" calculate the build order can lead to some issues (like compiling the default OPTIONS before asking the user to select OPTIONS) > > ooroo, Ian > > - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems, Java Developer Tools http://www.flosoft-systems.com Developer, not business, friendly. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHgTz+jRvRjGmHRgQRAgj8AKCbgfQfoquUWiceLSGxOBQmNDLGxQCeJLGY p2zteaiWHCoJ95O64urXoZs= =P5jK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:31:29 "Aryeh M. Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rudy wrote: > > Michael Lednev wrote: > >> Hello. > >> > >> Is there any way to compact /var/db/portsnap other than deleting > >> it and doing postsnap fetch? Not really. /var/db/portsnap/files contains one file for each port, gzipped. Mine's about 70MB with indices, containing a ports tree of some 450MB. I guess it depends whether that much space is more precious to you than the time and bandwidth to fetch and then extract the whole tree afresh? > > I don't like portsnap -- granted I've never typed the portsnap > > command in my 10 years of FreeBSD use. I use cvsup! I didn't like it much until I'd tried it, either :) c[v]sup works fine too of course, so trimming some discussion of that .. [..] > > If you don't have cvsup installed, run this command: # pkg_add -r > > cvsup-without-gui > > It is better to use all ports or all packages so either do: Why do you say that? Do you know of unresolved issues regarding the interactions of port versus package installations? Any references? > cd /usr/ports/net/cvsup-without-gui > make install clean > > or after doing the above do a pkg_delete -a (assuming that your > working with a clean machine [no ports/packages instaleld except cvsup] Why wouldn't pkg_delete -a remove your just-installed cvsup-without-gui? > > For more info on the supfile, look at this file on your FreeBSD > > machine: /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile > > > > Preferring cvsup to portsnap is kinda like preferring vim over > > emacs... It's a holy war and the vi/cvsup side uses less disk > > space. > > Actually it is not like that at all.. cvsup/csup is the officially > preferred method and any other method is a short cut of some kind... Please provide a reference URL to 'official' support of this claim? > many of them have very subtle issues that the typical end-user should > not notice but should be aware of... Issues such as? And what other alternatives to c*sup and portsnap exist for ports tree management? ooroo, Ian ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
Hello, Rudy. On 6 января 2008 г., 5:43:54 you wrote: >> Is there any way to compact /var/db/portsnap other than deleting it >> and doing postsnap fetch? R> I don't like portsnap -- granted I've never typed the portsnap R> command in my 10 years of FreeBSD R> use. I use cvsup! Probably because portsnap is about 2 yo. The question is not "How to update my ports tree", its "How to compact /var/db/portsnap". Thanks for the answer anyway. PS try csup. This is cvsup clone written in C. Comes with the base system. -- Best regards, Michael mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rudy wrote: > Michael Lednev wrote: >> Hello. >> >> Is there any way to compact /var/db/portsnap other than deleting >> it and doing postsnap fetch? >> > > I don't like portsnap -- granted I've never typed the portsnap > command in my 10 years of FreeBSD use. I use cvsup! > > More info: > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvsup.html > > > QUick HOW-TO Make a file called /usr/src/ports-supfile Your better off using /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile because it is pre-debuggeg... also even though I don't use it because the nearest cvsup mirror is 5 miles away is install fastest_cvsup to find the fastest host. > - > #/usr/src/ports-supfile *default host=cvsup8.FreeBSD.org *default > base=/var/db *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs tag=. > *default delete use-rel-suffix *default compress ports-all > - > > Then, run this command: cvsup /usr/src/ports-supfile Note if your not going to use the local cvs repository method I use then you should use csup not cvsup because it comes with the base system (the semantics are identical to those of cvsup) [the only difference is csup can't handle "raw" cvs commands thus the cvs-supfile doesn't work with it] Make an alias for this that way when you update your sources you won't lose the host settings if /usr/share/examples/cvsup gets overwritten... for example my alias is: (I keep a complete local copy of the cvs repo so I use cvs-supfile instead of ports or standard [note 1]): alias cvsup "cvsup -h cvsup9.us.freebsd.org /usr/share/examples/cvs-supfile" > > If you don't have cvsup installed, run this command: # pkg_add -r > cvsup-without-gui It is better to use all ports or all packages so either do: cd /usr/ports/net/cvsup-without-gui make install clean or after doing the above do a pkg_delete -a (assuming that your working with a clean machine [no ports/packages instaleld except cvsup] > > For more info on the supfile, look at this file on your FreeBSD > machine: /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile > > Preferring cvsup to portsnap is kinda like preferring vim over > emacs... It's a holy war and the vi/cvsup side uses less disk > space. Actually it is not like that at all.. cvsup/csup is the officially preferred method and any other method is a short cut of some kind... many of them have very subtle issues that the typical end-user should not notice but should be aware of... > > - Rudy ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To > unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > Notes: 1. I keep a local cvs repository because unlike cvsup/csup straight cvs will not over write locally modified files (it will do it's best to merge in newer changes while persevering your local ones) - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems, Java Developer Tools http://www.flosoft-systems.com Developer, not business, friendly. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHgEuRjRvRjGmHRgQRAj/4AJ9rAd/rSZOPBDgtMfDjMzBEf8OCgQCgslO6 EPONuz7Tj7TMPQuvDhCHCdI= =lxH2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
Michael Lednev wrote: Hello. Is there any way to compact /var/db/portsnap other than deleting it and doing postsnap fetch? I don't like portsnap -- granted I've never typed the portsnap command in my 10 years of FreeBSD use. I use cvsup! More info: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvsup.html QUick HOW-TO Make a file called /usr/src/ports-supfile - #/usr/src/ports-supfile *default host=cvsup8.FreeBSD.org *default base=/var/db *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs tag=. *default delete use-rel-suffix *default compress ports-all - Then, run this command: cvsup /usr/src/ports-supfile If you don't have cvsup installed, run this command: # pkg_add -r cvsup-without-gui For more info on the supfile, look at this file on your FreeBSD machine: /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile Preferring cvsup to portsnap is kinda like preferring vim over emacs... It's a holy war and the vi/cvsup side uses less disk space. - Rudy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
