Re: ports missing their packages.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: andrew clarke mail_ozzmosis.com said (on 2008/10/29): You need to understand that the FreeBSD project by its nature is primarily source-code driven. Making packages available (of any port) is of very low priority in comparison to the rest of the system (testing, documentation, etc). Demanding that the FreeBSD volunteers build a package just because you want to use it is a bit unfair, particularly when you can make one yourself without much trouble. I'm not sure I got all the emails in this thread... maybe some just haven't arrived yet. Anyway... I, for one, depend on packages. It literally takes days to build something like Firefox on my (admittedly old) computer. I'm surprised that package creation is such a low priority. Are there so few people running FreeBSD on old hardware? Just so you're clear, the original poster was completely wrong on how packages are built by the FreeBSD project. Others have already explained the process in this thread, but to repeat: the packages are built automatically and continuously by a dedicated set of machines, and they are uploaded to the FTP site frequently. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:09:23PM +0800, FBSD1 wrote: It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted. Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload to the package server. Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their changes without creating the required package? This is just lax management on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. Missing packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its being mis-managed. It is not port managers who create or upload packages. Most of them do not even have access to the package server. The downloadable packages are built and uploaded automatically by a cluster of servers that do little else. If a particular port does not have a corresponding package it is generally not due to laxness on anybodys part. The main reasons why a port might not have corresponding package are: 1) The port has just been created and the package hasn't had time to built yet. Normally a very temporary situation. 2) Legal restrictions. There are several ports where it is simply not legal for the FreeBSD project to distribute the corresponding binary packages. 3) The port is currently broken and cannot be built. (This is of course a bug which should be fixed as soon as possible. For ports without a maintainer that might take a while.) 4) One or more of the dependencies of the package is not available as a package. (If port A depends on port B, and there does not exist a package for B (for any of the reasons listed here) there will not be a package of A either. An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing packages to the package server direct or to a staging ftp server so port/pkg management staff can review first and them populate the production package server. All the packages that can be built and distributed are already being built and uploaded. Allowing users to upload packages would not help. -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson [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: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, October 29, 2008 9:09 am, FBSD1 wrote: It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted. Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload to the package server. Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their changes without creating the required package? This is just lax management on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. Missing packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its being mis-managed. An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing packages to the package server direct or to a staging ftp server so port/pkg management staff can review first and them populate the production package server. There is a certain guideline in place which committers follow. If you have constructive feedback surely someone will listen to it. Spitting your frustration is not likely to help. Do note that we have a lot of maintainers which try to satify each and everyone of us, sending messages like this is not going to help *you*. I would have a strong opinion -against- people uploading towarsd the FTP server directly. That will not be done. period. To give you a better understanding; We have a ports-cluster which builds packages and uploads them to the appropriate place on the FTP servers, sometimes that takes a little to become available, donate more facilities so that we can do that better. Also note that QAT (a ports tinderbox) runs periodically to make sure every thing is just fine! Thanks, Remko -- /\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Remko Lodder | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xhttp://www.evilcoder.org/ | / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News -Original Message- From: Remko Lodder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ORG; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ports missing their packages. Well if you have this cluster build process why have some ports never been built all the way back to release 5.0 like kdenetwork-kopete-0.12.8. That is almost 3 years of waiting to get in the cluster build process. I am grateful to the maintainers for the great job they do, but completing the job by building the package is such a small additional task in light of they already have everything in place to build the package. Posting a email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or posting a bug report about package missing does not get the missing package built. Its just considered as background noise. I have brought this problem to light in past years and new releases keep coming out with the same packages missing. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, October 29, 2008 9:09 am, FBSD1 wrote: It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted. Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload to the package server. Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their changes without creating the required package? This is just lax management on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. Missing packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its being mis-managed. An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing packages to the package server direct or to a staging ftp server so port/pkg management staff can review first and them populate the production package server. There is a certain guideline in place which committers follow. If you have constructive feedback surely someone will listen to it. Spitting your frustration is not likely to help. Do note that we have a lot of maintainers which try to satify each and everyone of us, sending messages like this is not going to help *you*. I would have a strong opinion -against- people uploading towarsd the FTP server directly. That will not be done. period. To give you a better understanding; We have a ports-cluster which builds packages and uploads them to the appropriate place on the FTP servers, sometimes that takes a little to become available, donate more facilities so that we can do that better. Also note that QAT (a ports tinderbox) runs periodically to make sure every thing is just fine! Thanks, Remko -- /\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Remko Lodder | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xhttp://www.evilcoder.org/ | / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ports missing their packages.
-Original Message- From: Erik Trulsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:47 PM To: FBSD1 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ORG; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ports missing their packages. On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:09:23PM +0800, FBSD1 wrote: It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted. Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload to the package server. Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their changes without creating the required package? This is just lax management on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. Missing packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its being mis-managed. It is not port managers who create or upload packages. Most of them do not even have access to the package server. The downloadable packages are built and uploaded automatically by a cluster of servers that do little else. If a particular port does not have a corresponding package it is generally not due to laxness on anybodys part. The main reasons why a port might not have corresponding package are: 1) The port has just been created and the package hasn't had time to built yet. Normally a very temporary situation. 2) Legal restrictions. There are several ports where it is simply not legal for the FreeBSD project to distribute the corresponding binary packages. 3) The port is currently broken and cannot be built. (This is of course a bug which should be fixed as soon as possible. For ports without a maintainer that might take a while.) 4) One or more of the dependencies of the package is not available as a package. (If port A depends on port B, and there does not exist a package for B (for any of the reasons listed here) there will not be a package of A either. An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing packages to the package server direct or to a staging ftp server so port/pkg management staff can review first and them populate the production package server. All the packages that can be built and distributed are already being built and uploaded. Allowing users to upload packages would not help. -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Erik Trulsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:47 PM To: FBSD1 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ORG; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ports missing their packages. How does kdenetwork-kopete-0.12.8 or php5-gd or pdflib fit into those reasons you gave? These all have ports but no package for many releases of Freebsd. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On 2008-Oct-29 16:09:23 +0800, FBSD1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted. I'm not sure what you mean by install the port for real. A port maintainer is responsible for updating his/her ports and verifying that they work. This presumably includes building and installing the port. Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload to the package server. This isn't true for a whole variety of reasons. Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their changes without creating the required package? Because packages aren't required and creation of packages is nothing to do with ports maintainers. This is just lax management on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. I suggest you do a bit more reading and a bit less pontificating. Missing packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its being mis-managed. Not all ports have packages for a variety of reasons and there is no requirement that every port has packages for every supported version of FreeBSD. Maybe you need to learn how to cd /usr/ports/... make install -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. pgpgFjJY7r6E3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:02:14PM +0800, joeb wrote: How does kdenetwork-kopete-0.12.8 or php5-gd or pdflib fit into those reasons you gave? These all have ports but no package for many releases of Freebsd. For print/pdflib it is legal restrictions. (The Makefile says RESTRICTED= many odd restrictions on usage and distribution) As for graphics/php5-gd and net-im/kopete ports, they both seem to be available as pre-built packages so I am not sure what problem you are having with them. -Original Message- From: Erik Trulsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:47 PM To: FBSD1 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ORG; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ports missing their packages. On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:09:23PM +0800, FBSD1 wrote: It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted. Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload to the package server. Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their changes without creating the required package? This is just lax management on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. Missing packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its being mis-managed. It is not port managers who create or upload packages. Most of them do not even have access to the package server. The downloadable packages are built and uploaded automatically by a cluster of servers that do little else. If a particular port does not have a corresponding package it is generally not due to laxness on anybodys part. The main reasons why a port might not have corresponding package are: 1) The port has just been created and the package hasn't had time to built yet. Normally a very temporary situation. 2) Legal restrictions. There are several ports where it is simply not legal for the FreeBSD project to distribute the corresponding binary packages. 3) The port is currently broken and cannot be built. (This is of course a bug which should be fixed as soon as possible. For ports without a maintainer that might take a while.) 4) One or more of the dependencies of the package is not available as a package. (If port A depends on port B, and there does not exist a package for B (for any of the reasons listed here) there will not be a package of A either. An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing packages to the package server direct or to a staging ftp server so port/pkg management staff can review first and them populate the production package server. All the packages that can be built and distributed are already being built and uploaded. Allowing users to upload packages would not help. -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson [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: ports missing their packages.
On Wed 2008-10-29 16:53:26 UTC+0800, joeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Well if you have this cluster build process why have some ports never been built all the way back to release 5.0 like kdenetwork-kopete-0.12.8. That is almost 3 years of waiting to get in the cluster build process. You need to understand that the FreeBSD project by its nature is primarily source-code driven. Making packages available (of any port) is of very low priority in comparison to the rest of the system (testing, documentation, etc). Demanding that the FreeBSD volunteers build a package just because you want to use it is a bit unfair, particularly when you can make one yourself without much trouble. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On 10/29/08, FBSD1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted. Port maintainers usually verify that an updated port will build and work correctly with their currently installed ports. Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload to the package server. Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their changes without creating the required package? So you are advocating that port maintainers have to create packages for all the supported FreeBSD architecture's (amd64, arm, i386, ia64, mips, pc98, powerpc, sparc64, sun4v). That would be 9 packages needing to be created at the time the port maintainer submits the upgrade PR. We have the package cluster to automate these builds. This is just lax management on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. Missing packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its being mis-managed. Some packages have to remain missing due to their license restricting redistribution of the compiled softare. This can cause other ports that don't have a restrictive license to fail building because one/more of it's dependencies has this restrictive license. An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing packages to the package server direct or to a staging ftp server so port/pkg management staff can review first and them populate the production package server. This solution won't work, if the user has custom compile flags and/or builds the port with non-default options defined in /etc/make.conf or using 'make config'. The next user who downloads the port might get a package that doesn't function the same as the previous version. The package may not even work on that users computer (i.e. package compiled for k8 processor installed on a pentium4 system). The best solution to find out why a package is not being built for a port is to check it's Makefile, and the Makefiles of it's dependencies. Also looking at http://portsmon.freebsd.org/ to find out why a port has failed to build a package. If you can't find a reason for why the package failed to build, then send a message to the maintainers, and the ports list to have some one look into the problem. It could be as simple as forgetting to add the ports subdirectory to the category Makefile (i.e www/Makefile). Scot ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, October 29, 2008 9:53 am, joeb wrote: On Wed, October 29, 2008 9:09 am, FBSD1 wrote: It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted. Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload to the package server. Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their changes without creating the required package? This is just lax management on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. Missing packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its being mis-managed. An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing packages to the package server direct or to a staging ftp server so port/pkg management staff can review first and them populate the production package server. There is a certain guideline in place which committers follow. If you have constructive feedback surely someone will listen to it. Spitting your frustration is not likely to help. Do note that we have a lot of maintainers which try to satify each and everyone of us, sending messages like this is not going to help *you*. I would have a strong opinion -against- people uploading towarsd the FTP server directly. That will not be done. period. To give you a better understanding; We have a ports-cluster which builds packages and uploads them to the appropriate place on the FTP servers, sometimes that takes a little to become available, donate more facilities so that we can do that better. Also note that QAT (a ports tinderbox) runs periodically to make sure every thing is just fine! Thanks, Remko -- /\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Remko Lodder | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xhttp://www.evilcoder.org/ | / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News -Original Message- From: Remko Lodder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ORG; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ports missing their packages. Well if you have this cluster build process why have some ports never been built all the way back to release 5.0 like kdenetwork-kopete-0.12.8. That is almost 3 years of waiting to get in the cluster build process. There might be reasons for packages not being built, sometimes it's an license issue, sometimes the package does not build etc. It's not something that you can demand that you need a package that it gets there. There is more to it then just build the freaking thing ;-) I am grateful to the maintainers for the great job they do, but completing the job by building the package is such a small additional task in light of they already have everything in place to build the package. It's not, we have guidelines that we have to follow in order to keep things managable. Posting a email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or posting a bug report about package missing does not get the missing package built. Its just considered as background noise. I have brought this problem to light in past years and new releases keep coming out with the same packages missing. Then apparantly there is no need for your idea and it will not get implemented. Stating that a package is missing, soit, we build packages all the time and as said there are reasons for some ports not being build into packages etc. First investigate that before complaining this loud. We have been in this proces before with you (Bob was your name back then if I remember correctly). Thnx, Remko -- /\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Remko Lodder | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xhttp://www.evilcoder.org/ | / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
andrew clarke mail_ozzmosis.com said (on 2008/10/29): You need to understand that the FreeBSD project by its nature is primarily source-code driven. Making packages available (of any port) is of very low priority in comparison to the rest of the system (testing, documentation, etc). Demanding that the FreeBSD volunteers build a package just because you want to use it is a bit unfair, particularly when you can make one yourself without much trouble. I'm not sure I got all the emails in this thread... maybe some just haven't arrived yet. Anyway... I, for one, depend on packages. It literally takes days to build something like Firefox on my (admittedly old) computer. I'm surprised that package creation is such a low priority. Are there so few people running FreeBSD on old hardware? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed 2008-10-29 04:10:33 UTC-0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm not sure I got all the emails in this thread... maybe some just haven't arrived yet. It began on freebsd-ports, then the OP started cross-posting to -questions, so I moved my replies to -questions. Anyway... I, for one, depend on packages. It literally takes days to build something like Firefox on my (admittedly old) computer. I'm surprised that package creation is such a low priority. Are there so few people running FreeBSD on old hardware? Well, FF eats memory. Just running it on something older than that is not going to be a pleasant experience. I imagine most people using Firefox are probably using fairly modern hardware, built within the last 4 years or so. I built Firefox from ports on a 5 year old 1.6 GHz PC running 7.0-REL in 256 Mb RAM. It certainly didn't take _days_ to build. From memory I ran it overnight and it was done in the morning. I would've killed the build if it was still running when I woke up. Anyway, Firefox is a pretty complicated piece of software. Most ports don't take anything like that long to build. In any case, there are packages of Firefox available, so it's not as bad as you make out! ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/www/firefox-2.0.0.17,1.tbz ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/www/firefox-3.0.3,1.tbz ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-7-stable/www/firefox-2.0.0.17,1.tbz ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-7-stable/www/firefox-3.0.3,1.tbz ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
--- On Wed, 10/29/08, FBSD1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FBSD1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ports missing their packages. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ORG freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 4:09 AM It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted. Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload to the package server. Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their changes without creating the required package? This is just lax management on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. Missing packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its being mis-managed. Very few port maintainers have access to simply upload a package to the ftp servers. This just isn't how the system works. During the process of checking to ensure that a port was built or updated sanely, we do create a package, just to ensure that that make target works as expected. Port maintainers are not the ones responsible for the entire system, only for maintaining a few files which folks get in the ports tree. An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing packages to the package server direct or to a staging ftp server so port/pkg management staff can review first and them populate the production package server. Yeah, that's sane. Nobody will ever just upload something that demands to be run as root, then changes the root password, enables telnet, and hops on IRC to notify the person who uploaded it, or something. The system does work. It just doesn't provide instant gratification. If you really need things to happen in real-time, email the FreeBSD Foundation and find out how much cash it'd take for additional hardware to make that a reality, then send them that much cash. - mdh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 04:10:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: andrew clarke mail_ozzmosis.com said (on 2008/10/29): You need to understand that the FreeBSD project by its nature is primarily source-code driven. Making packages available (of any port) is of very low priority in comparison to the rest of the system (testing, documentation, etc). Demanding that the FreeBSD volunteers build a package just because you want to use it is a bit unfair, particularly when you can make one yourself without much trouble. I'm not sure I got all the emails in this thread... maybe some just haven't arrived yet. Anyway... I, for one, depend on packages. It literally takes days to build something like Firefox on my (admittedly old) computer. In that case I would suggest that you stick to release versions and don't update your ports tree between releases unless there's a significant vulnerability that's fixed in the current tree. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:09:23PM +0800, FBSD1 wrote: An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing packages one word for you: security. What you suggest is never, ever, going to be implemented, due to the total lack of security. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:42:18AM -0500, Scot Hetzel wrote: So you are advocating that port maintainers have to create packages for all the supported FreeBSD architecture's (amd64, arm, i386, ia64, mips, pc98, powerpc, sparc64, sun4v). That would be 9 packages needing to be created at the time the port maintainer submits the upgrade PR. Nope, not 9 :-) You are forgetting FreeBSD 6, 7, and -current have builds enabled. OTOH, portmgr is only supporting amd64, i386, and sparc64 right now, and is not doing sparc64-8 due to lack of machines, so really the matrix is only 8. The ia64 package builds were stopped due to problems (and the fact that we only have 2 machines). There are no package building machines for the others yet -- and some of them ae really only going to be used for embedded systems, so only a very minimal subset of ports is going to be useful. So far, we've talked about addding machines for these, but there are no fixed plans so far. It could be as simple as forgetting to add the ports subdirectory to the category Makefile (i.e www/Makefile). Actually this is an uncommon problem; every time portmgr builds a package set, error messages are spit out if things are missing, and we are quick to email the maintainers :-) mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:02:14PM +0800, joeb wrote: How does kdenetwork-kopete-0.12.8 or php5-gd or pdflib fit into those reasons you gave? A little research shows: ftp://ftp4.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-7-stable/All/php5-gd-5.2.6_2.tbz So, there is a current package for php5-gd. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/print/pdflib/Makefile?rev=1.54 So, there will never be a package for pdflib, because we are not allowed to distibute it. Now, apparently audio/jack is not being built at the moment, but without access to my home system I can't probe any further. See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/audio/jack/Makefile?rev=1.44 and http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portoverview.py?category=audioportname=jack. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:55:20AM -0700, mdh wrote: email the FreeBSD Foundation and find out how much cash it'd take for additional hardware to make that a reality, then send them that much cash. We are actually set up ok on amd64 machines right now (incremental package builds take just over a day). We are in the process of adding some more i386 machines (it is a matter of configuration; however, most of these are not really powerful machines). This should help get the incremental builds down from 3-4 days to 2-3 days. We also have some sparc64 machines that are on loan to us, which I am also in the process of configuration, but these are only UltraSPARC-II machines. There seems to be some work going on right now to get us running on US-III machines; if so, then it would be handy to get some of them. In the meantime, sparc64 package builds take more than 2 weeks :-( mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On 2008-Oct-29 10:22:36 -0500, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We also have some sparc64 machines that are on loan to us, which I am also in the process of configuration, but these are only UltraSPARC-II machines. There seems to be some work going on right now to get us running on US-III machines; if so, then it would be handy to get some of them. In the meantime, sparc64 package builds take more than 2 weeks :-( Since sparc64 userland will run on sun4v (similar to using (eg) Pentium userland on a Pentium-4 CPU), the other option is to invest some resources in the sun4v port and build sparc64 packages on a sun4v cluster. -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. pgpz6hwAnSBXG.pgp Description: PGP signature
