Re: [Fwd: pkgbox64 pkgsrc DragonFly 2.5.1/x86_64 2009-10-16 21:12]
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Justin C. Sherrill wrote: Binary package build for DragonFly 2.5.x on amd64 has completed, with a greater-than-I-expected number of packages building. Total number of packages: 8969 Successfully built: 7475 Failed to build: 359 Depending on failed package: 574 Explicitly broken or masked: 497 Depending on masked package:64 Justin, thats awesome piece of work. Do you think it is a good idea to weigh build-fail/broken/masked packages against a usage list like https://www.osscensus.org/packages-rank-public.php?offset=0limit=778page=0 Using that approach one can showcase certain apps that work/build exceptionally well on the DragonFlyBSD platform. Perhaps somebody may have already reflected on this and that is something not obvious to a newbie like me. thanks Saifi.
Re: [Fwd: pkgbox64 pkgsrc DragonFly 2.5.1/x86_64 2009-10-16 21:12]
Justin C. Sherrill wrote: These should work for all amd64 versions, via pkgin or pkg_radd or manual download. The report didn't upload because of a permissions problem, which I've fixed and the next run (already started) should have an up-to-date report to accompany it. Do you think you can push the report still or is it too late? Are you performing incremental builds? cheers simon
Re: [Fwd: pkgbox64 pkgsrc DragonFly 2.5.1/x86_64 2009-10-16 21:12]
Justin C. Sherrill wrote: On Wed, October 21, 2009 12:36 pm, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote: Justin C. Sherrill wrote: These should work for all amd64 versions, via pkgin or pkg_radd or manual download. The report didn't upload because of a permissions problem, which I've fixed and the next run (already started) should have an up-to-date report to accompany it. Do you think you can push the report still or is it too late? Are you performing incremental builds? Too late - it already has 3,500 packages since my post this morning, so I figured a delay of a day wouldn't hurt. Some of the broken packages match the existing i386 results, so these are not necessarily amd64-specific problems. The builds are incremental. This and the others took so long because it was the first 2009Q3 build. sweeet!
Re: [Fwd: pkgbox64 pkgsrc DragonFly 2.5.1/x86_64 2009-10-16 21:12]
On Wed, October 21, 2009 12:36 pm, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote: Justin C. Sherrill wrote: These should work for all amd64 versions, via pkgin or pkg_radd or manual download. The report didn't upload because of a permissions problem, which I've fixed and the next run (already started) should have an up-to-date report to accompany it. Do you think you can push the report still or is it too late? Are you performing incremental builds? Too late - it already has 3,500 packages since my post this morning, so I figured a delay of a day wouldn't hurt. Some of the broken packages match the existing i386 results, so these are not necessarily amd64-specific problems. The builds are incremental. This and the others took so long because it was the first 2009Q3 build.
Re: [Fwd: pkgbox64 pkgsrc DragonFly 2.5.1/x86_64 2009-10-16 21:12]
On Wed, October 21, 2009 12:19 pm, Saifi Khan wrote: Justin, thats awesome piece of work. Do you think it is a good idea to weigh build-fail/broken/masked packages against a usage list like https://www.osscensus.org/packages-rank-public.php?offset=0limit=778page=0 That's a good idea for prioritizing needed fixes, but there's something in the existing reports that that I think mostly covers it. Most of the items with a high usage rate in the report you linked tend to have a high downstream dependency, so if they break, lots of other packages break. The email report that comes from a bulk build shows a list of the top packages who break other packages by not building, so we should be able to get a list of what needs to be done directly from there, and it should follow the same general pattern as that usage list.
