Re: Questions on portmaster
On 7/2/09, Manish Jain invalid.poin...@gmail.com wrote:
b. f. wrote:
Manish Jain wrote:
Regarding the download speeds I was getting with portmaster fetches (0.7
kBps to 4.0 kBps), I immediately booted into Windows/Cygwin and did a
wget from the same site portmaster was using. The speed I got from wget
was ~ 35 kBps. This happened not just once but multiple times. Each time
I did this, I had to interrupt portmaster. Finally I managed to get to
install the wget port on FreeBSD itself. When I ran wget from FreeBSD,
it reported comparable transfer rates (~ 35 kBps) from the same sites as
portmaster was using.
This has nothing to do with portmaster. Remember, portmaster is just
a (sometimes) convenient shell script wrapper for the normal ports
infrastructure. What you're probably seeing is either the usual
fluctuations in network performance, or the difference between wget
and FreeBSD fetch(1), which by default is used for getting distfiles
and packages. This is set in bsd.port.mk, and you can override it if
you prefer to use something else. See the comments concerning
FETCH_BINARY, FETCH_ARGS, FETCH_CMD, FETCH_{BEFORE,AFTER}_ARGS,
FETCH_ENV, and FETCH_REGET at the top of bsd.port.mk, or the relevant
portion of that script. You can also try tuning your network
settings, which can speed things up significantly in some cases.
It respects IGNORE (it checks for it in the port Makefile, and also
hands off to bsd.port.mk, which respects it).
I got a curl port from portsnap marked IGNORE. portmaster did not ignore
it anywhere near gracefully enough and finally killed off all child
processes and itself.
Uh, yeah -- but that's another matter. It did IGNORE it, but it just
stopped entirely. This is another one of the things that need
improvement. portupgrade, by contrast, will keep going, only ignoring
the port in question and any ports that depend upon it, but updating
the rest. You should be able to patch portmaster to mimic this
behavior.
Anyway, my system became so unpredictable that I had to reinstall
FreeBSD. For the moment, I am avoiding portmaster till I can try it out
on a dummy PC first.
Well, something is awry if your system was damaged that badly, and it
probably wasn't because of portmaster. In general, few ports ought to
damage the base system. You're probably better off trying to remove
and then reinstall all of your ports first (the instructions in the
portmaster manpage are good in this regard), before reinstalling
everything.
BTW, I also tried portmanager and it segfaulted at the stage of
generating a report.
Oh, well. Sounds like a job for rnol...@freebsd.org. But wait --
who wants to bother him about some tiny piece of port management
software when he is heroically staging a single-handed campaign to
maintain X11 on FreeBSD?
b.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Questions on portmaster
Hi, I am using portmaster on FreeBSD-7.2 to keep my ports up to date. When there are multiple ports to be updated, portmaster will fork off child processes. Does each child start 'make fetch' in the background ? I ask this because the parent process attached to the console reports very low data transfer rates (in the range of 0.7 to 4.0 kBps, while normally I get 30 to 35 kBps). Further, how can portmaster be tuned to automatically ignore ports which are actually marked as IGNORE in the port directory ? This is not covered in the manpage. While doing portmaster -a, I have only managed to stop portmaster from building exactly one port specified with the -x option. Can I get to stop multiple ports from being built ? Is there regular expression support for the -x option ? Thanks for any help. -- Regards Manish Jain invalid.poin...@gmail.com +91-96500-10329 Laast year I kudn't spell Software Engineer. Now I are won. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Questions on portmaster
On Wednesday, 1 July 2009 02:02:47 Manish Jain wrote: Hi, I am using portmaster on FreeBSD-7.2 to keep my ports up to date. When there are multiple ports to be updated, portmaster will fork off child processes. Does each child start 'make fetch' in the background ? I ask this because the parent process attached to the console reports very low data transfer rates (in the range of 0.7 to 4.0 kBps, while normally I get 30 to 35 kBps). Further, how can portmaster be tuned to automatically ignore ports which are actually marked as IGNORE in the port directory ? This is not covered in the manpage. While doing portmaster -a, I have only managed to stop portmaster from building exactly one port specified with the -x option. Can I get to stop multiple ports from being built ? Is there regular expression support for the -x option ? Thanks for any help. Hello Manish, Regarding your last point about excluding particular ports I always thought that it would be convenient to have a section in /usr/local/etc/portmaster.rc and/or $HOME/.portmasterrc to identify these particular ports. I prefer to have all this information in one place rather than scattered over many subdirectories. I had the same problem with trying to have multiple instances of -x but gave up and used +IGNOREME instead. Some time ago I succeeded with a regular expression but it became overly complicated if more than two ports were to be excluded. Nevertheless, I use portmaster daily and am very pleased with it. With thanks to Doug Barton. Cheers... Marek ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Questions on portmaster
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 11:14:10AM -0400, mfv wrote: On Wednesday, 1 July 2009 02:02:47 Manish Jain wrote: excluded. Nevertheless, I use portmaster daily and am very pleased with it. With thanks to Doug Barton. portmaster rules, excellent tool, Doug is a star! -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 928 8233 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Questions on portmaster
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 11:32:47AM +0530, Manish Jain wrote: Hi, I am using portmaster on FreeBSD-7.2 to keep my ports up to date. When there are multiple ports to be updated, portmaster will fork off child processes. Does each child start 'make fetch' in the background ? The fetches are not done in parallel. I ask this because the parent process attached to the console reports very low data transfer rates (in the range of 0.7 to 4.0 kBps, while normally I get 30 to 35 kBps). This is not enough data to ascertain there is a problem with fetch. If you are fetching from a busy site, or via a busy upstream channel it can be slow. Further, how can portmaster be tuned to automatically ignore ports which are actually marked as IGNORE in the port directory ? touch /var/db/pkg/name_of_port/+IGNOREME This is not covered in the manpage. It is. Look in the FILES section of portmaster(8). Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgp4qK8UEAKmn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions on portmaster
Manish Jain wrote:
...Does each child start 'make fetch' in the background ?
make checksum, yes.
Further, how can portmaster be tuned to automatically ignore ports which
are actually marked as IGNORE in the port directory ? This is not
covered in the manpage.
It respects IGNORE (it checks for it in the port Makefile, and also
hands off to bsd.port.mk, which respects it). If you mean +IGNOREME,
the others have answered your question.
While doing portmaster -a, I have only managed to stop portmaster from
building exactly one port specified with the -x option. Can I get to
stop multiple ports from being built ? Is there regular expression
support for the -x option ?
Not in the sense that you mean, at least that I'm aware of. This one
of the things that needs improvement. It is a bit awkward, because it
uses the shell's built-in POSIX getopts to parse options, and then
calls itself recursively. One way you could fix it would be to apply
a patch like:
--- portmaster.orig 2009-07-01 12:36:14.0 -0400
+++ portmaster 2009-07-01 18:55:59.0 -0400
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
if [ -z $PARENT_PID ]; then
PARENT_PID=$$
: ${TMPDIR:=/tmp}
- UPGRADE_TOOL=portmaster
+ UPGRADE_TOOL=$0
# /usr/local is needed in the path for make
PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin
@@ -788,7 +788,11 @@
u) UNATTENDED=uopt; ARGS=-u $ARGS ;;
v) PM_VERBOSE=vopt; ARGS=-v $ARGS ;;
w) SAVE_SHARED=wopt; ARGS=-w $ARGS ;;
- x) EXCL=$OPTARG ;;
+ x) if [ -z ${OPTARG%%-*} ]; then
+ fail 'The -x option requires an argument'
+ else
+ EXCL=-x $OPTARG $EXCL
+ fi ;;
*) echo '' ; echo === Try ${0##*/} --help; exit 1 ;;
esac
done
@@ -810,10 +814,7 @@
[ -n $FETCH_ONLY -a -n $NO_RECURSIVE_CONFIG ]
fail The -F and -G options are mutually exclusive
if [ -n $EXCL ]; then
- case $EXCL in
- -*) fail 'The -x option requires an argument' ;;
- *) ARGS=-x $EXCL $ARGS ;;
- esac
+ ARGS=$EXCL $ARGS
fi
#=== Begin functions for getopts features and main ===
@@ -1461,14 +1462,17 @@
check_exclude () {
[ -n $EXCL ] || return 0
- case $1 in
- *${EXCL}*)
- if [ -n $PM_VERBOSE ]; then
- echo === Skipping $1
- echobecause it matches the pattern: *${EXCL}*
- fi
- return 1 ;;
- esac
+ for pkgglob in `echo $EXCL | sed -e 's#-x##g'`
+ do
+ case $1 in
+ *${pkgglob}*)
+ if [ -n $PM_VERBOSE ]; then
+ echo === Skipping $1
+ echobecause it matches the pattern:
*${pkgglob}*
+ fi
+ return 1 ;;
+ esac ;
+ done
return 0
}
(Mind the whitespace because of my MUA.) Then you could just use
repeated -x flags, each with one and only one package glob that you
wanted to exclude. I changed the definition of UPGRADE_TOOL so that
you could put this script in your path under another name, say
jainpmaster, and then call it independently of the original
portmaster. As usual, I make no claim that this is the best, only, or
most elegant way to do this.
Regards,
b.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Questions on portmaster
b. f. wrote:
Manish Jain wrote:
...Does each child start 'make fetch' in the background ?
make checksum, yes.
Further, how can portmaster be tuned to automatically ignore ports which
are actually marked as IGNORE in the port directory ? This is not
covered in the manpage.
It respects IGNORE (it checks for it in the port Makefile, and also
hands off to bsd.port.mk, which respects it). If you mean +IGNOREME,
the others have answered your question.
While doing portmaster -a, I have only managed to stop portmaster from
building exactly one port specified with the -x option. Can I get to
stop multiple ports from being built ? Is there regular expression
support for the -x option ?
Not in the sense that you mean, at least that I'm aware of. This one
of the things that needs improvement. It is a bit awkward, because it
uses the shell's built-in POSIX getopts to parse options, and then
calls itself recursively. One way you could fix it would be to apply
a patch like:
--- portmaster.orig 2009-07-01 12:36:14.0 -0400
+++ portmaster 2009-07-01 18:55:59.0 -0400
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
if [ -z $PARENT_PID ]; then
PARENT_PID=$$
: ${TMPDIR:=/tmp}
- UPGRADE_TOOL=portmaster
+ UPGRADE_TOOL=$0
# /usr/local is needed in the path for make
PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin
@@ -788,7 +788,11 @@
u) UNATTENDED=uopt; ARGS=-u $ARGS ;;
v) PM_VERBOSE=vopt; ARGS=-v $ARGS ;;
w) SAVE_SHARED=wopt; ARGS=-w $ARGS ;;
- x) EXCL=$OPTARG ;;
+ x) if [ -z ${OPTARG%%-*} ]; then
+ fail 'The -x option requires an argument'
+ else
+ EXCL=-x $OPTARG $EXCL
+ fi ;;
*) echo '' ; echo === Try ${0##*/} --help; exit 1 ;;
esac
done
@@ -810,10 +814,7 @@
[ -n $FETCH_ONLY -a -n $NO_RECURSIVE_CONFIG ]
fail The -F and -G options are mutually exclusive
if [ -n $EXCL ]; then
- case $EXCL in
- -*) fail 'The -x option requires an argument' ;;
- *) ARGS=-x $EXCL $ARGS ;;
- esac
+ ARGS=$EXCL $ARGS
fi
#=== Begin functions for getopts features and main ===
@@ -1461,14 +1462,17 @@
check_exclude () {
[ -n $EXCL ] || return 0
- case $1 in
- *${EXCL}*)
- if [ -n $PM_VERBOSE ]; then
- echo === Skipping $1
- echobecause it matches the pattern: *${EXCL}*
- fi
- return 1 ;;
- esac
+ for pkgglob in `echo $EXCL | sed -e 's#-x##g'`
+ do
+ case $1 in
+ *${pkgglob}*)
+ if [ -n $PM_VERBOSE ]; then
+ echo === Skipping $1
+ echobecause it matches the pattern:
*${pkgglob}*
+ fi
+ return 1 ;;
+ esac ;
+ done
return 0
}
(Mind the whitespace because of my MUA.) Then you could just use
repeated -x flags, each with one and only one package glob that you
wanted to exclude. I changed the definition of UPGRADE_TOOL so that
you could put this script in your path under another name, say
jainpmaster, and then call it independently of the original
portmaster. As usual, I make no claim that this is the best, only, or
most elegant way to do this.
Regards,
b.
Hello BF/Roland,
Thanks for the clarifications.
Regarding the download speeds I was getting with portmaster fetches (0.7
kBps to 4.0 kBps), I immediately booted into Windows/Cygwin and did a
wget from the same site portmaster was using. The speed I got from wget
was ~ 35 kBps. This happened not just once but multiple times. Each time
I did this, I had to interrupt portmaster. Finally I managed to get to
install the wget port on FreeBSD itself. When I ran wget from FreeBSD,
it reported comparable transfer rates (~ 35 kBps) from the same sites as
portmaster was using.
It respects IGNORE (it checks for it in the port Makefile, and also
hands off to bsd.port.mk, which respects it).
I got a curl port from portsnap marked IGNORE. portmaster did not ignore
it anywhere near gracefully enough and finally killed off all child
processes and itself.
The IGNOREME way is fine for me for avoiding multiple ports I know
beforehand I do not want to build. But if a portsnap update creates an
IGNORE port, portmaster should be skipping it entirely rather than
having to kill all child processes and itself. In my experience, this
did not happen. Or maybe my system was badly broken already by that time.
Anyway, my system became so unpredictable that I had to reinstall
FreeBSD. For the moment, I am avoiding portmaster till I can try it out
on a dummy PC first.
BTW, I also tried portmanager and it segfaulted at the stage of
generating a report.
Thanks for all the help.
Manish Jain
invalid.poin...@gmail.com
