Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Teske, Devin
On Jul 14, 2013, at 12:06 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > In article <20130714064601$3...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>, > dte...@freebsd.org writes: > >>> [I wrote:] >>> It accesses the sqlite database in /var/db/pkg that was previously >>> retrieved from the remote repository. > >> Now from what you

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 14/07/2013 04:18, Teske, Devin wrote: > ASIDE: For efficiency, I will actually need three things: (1) a list > of all packages (2) their descriptions and (3) their run-time dependencies. That would be the repository catalogue, which you can download by 'pkg update' (or it will happen automatic

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Teske, Devin
On Jul 13, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Teske, Devin > wrote: > >> So yes... I'm asking... in a HEAD world, what is the "officially supported" >> method of acquisition? > > * pkgng will be configured to pull via http from project > infrastructure by

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 14/07/2013 06:48, Teske, Devin wrote: > Question: Where can I learn more about the actual format of what's in > the new tarballs? This is going to be important not for bsdconfig, > but $work (we have our own build platform; I'm going to have to > rewrite it from mastering PLIST files to masterin

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Teske, Devin
On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:30 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 14/07/2013 06:48, Teske, Devin wrote: >> Question: Where can I learn more about the actual format of what's in >> the new tarballs? This is going to be important not for bsdconfig, >> but $work (we have our own build platform; I'm going to h

Re: msk0 watchdog timeout and interrupt storm

2013-07-14 Thread Yonghyeon PYUN
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 01:39:06PM +0200, Denis D wrote: > > If you use dual-boot, please try "cold-boot" it. Other OS may have > > > > put the PHY into weird state. Cold-boot shall make firmware restore > > > > its PHY configuration. > > > > > > > > > > Hello pyunyh, > > > > > when

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Garrett Wollman
In article <20130714054840$7...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>, dte...@freebsd.org writes: >How about rquery? What protocol does that use? and what does it talk to? It accesses the sqlite database in /var/db/pkg that was previously retrieved from the remote repository. >Question: Where can I learn mor

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 14/07/2013 11:12, Teske, Devin wrote: > Interesting. I notice that (while looking ahead to see a prefix: of > /usr/local in the +MANIFEST), the tarball itself has files that include > /usr/local in their path. Yes -- we consider the $PREFIX to be 'baked into' the package at compile time. You

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Garrett Wollman
In article <20130714064601$3...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>, dte...@freebsd.org writes: >> [I wrote:] >> It accesses the sqlite database in /var/db/pkg that was previously >> retrieved from the remote repository. >Now from what you explained of pkg, I'm worried that for bsdconfig: > >1. Browse packa

Ports with daemons on uninstall...

2013-07-14 Thread Ian FREISLICH
Hi I have to ask if there's a standard for the way ports should handle their daemons when the port is uninstalled. I've encountered 3 varients of ports behaviour on uninstall: 1. Do nothing 2. Stop the daemon 3. Ask if the daemon should be stopped #1 closely followed by #3 are the least irritat

Re: lost my r2xxxxx subversion id in uname & kern.version

2013-07-14 Thread cpghost
On 07/13/13 03:03, Dan Mack wrote: > I'm not sure exactly when but recently I've lost the subversion id > from kern.version and hence uname and motd. > > Subsequent fresh rebuilds from source don't bring it back even after > wiping out the tree. > > Today it looks like this: > > root@olive:~ # unam

Re: Ports with daemons on uninstall...

2013-07-14 Thread Scot Hetzel
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > Hi > > I have to ask if there's a standard for the way ports should handle > their daemons when the port is uninstalled. > > I've encountered 3 varients of ports behaviour on uninstall: > > 1. Do nothing > 2. Stop the daemon > 3. Ask if the

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Teske, Devin
On Jul 14, 2013, at 8:01 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > On 14 Jul 2013, at 08:29, Teske, Devin wrote: >> >> To give you an idea as to just how helpful this is... >> >> Imagine the following hierarchy: >> >> src/pkgbase/depend/mystuff/script1 >> src/pkgbase/depend/mystuff/textfile1 >> src/pkgbase/depe

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Adrian Chadd
... I bet you could do that. I bet you could build the rpm inside a linux jail and have the relevant uname bits overridden in the right way. -adrian On 14 July 2013 09:52, Teske, Devin wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2013, at 8:01 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > >> On 14 Jul 2013, at 08:29, Teske, Devin wrote: >

Re: Ports with daemons on uninstall...

2013-07-14 Thread Jilles Tjoelker
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 05:52:37PM +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > I have to ask if there's a standard for the way ports should handle > their daemons when the port is uninstalled. > I've encountered 3 varients of ports behaviour on uninstall: > 1. Do nothing > 2. Stop the daemon > 3. Ask if the da

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Chris Rees
On 14 Jul 2013, at 08:29, Teske, Devin wrote: > > To give you an idea as to just how helpful this is... > > Imagine the following hierarchy: > > src/pkgbase/depend/mystuff/script1 > src/pkgbase/depend/mystuff/textfile1 > src/pkgbase/depend/mystuff/sourcefile.c > src/pkgbase/depend/mystuff/Makefi

Re: Ports with daemons on uninstall...

2013-07-14 Thread Garrett Wollman
In article <20130714191725.ga30...@stack.nl>, jil...@stack.nl writes: >Apart from the annoyance of the restarts, automatic stopping and >starting is probably the best policy for having things "just work". Some >daemons will crash or otherwise stop being useful when their files have >been deleted o

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Craig Rodrigues
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Teske, Devin wrote: > > > I assume that poudiere builds packages from ports. > Yes. > > That's not how we build package repositories here (and would expect that > there are many more like us). > How do you build packages if you are not using FreeBSD ports? D

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Rainer Duffner
Am 15.07.2013 um 00:43 schrieb Craig Rodrigues : > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Teske, Devin > wrote: > >> >> >> I assume that poudiere builds packages from ports. >> > > Yes. > > >> >> That's not how we build package repositories here (and would expect that >> there are many more l

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Teske, Devin
On Jul 14, 2013, at 11:50 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > ... I bet you could do that. I bet you could build the rpm inside a > linux jail and have the relevant uname bits overridden in the right > way. > There's an idea. -- Devin > On 14 July 2013 09:52, Teske, Devin wrote: >> >> On Jul 14, 201

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Adrian Chadd
Guys, Devin runs a _lot_ of FreeBSD stuff at his work. If anything we as a community should be making his life easier, not act like he's just clueless and doing it wrong. -adrian On 14 July 2013 16:24, Rainer Duffner wrote: > > Am 15.07.2013 um 00:43 schrieb Craig Rodrigues : > >> On Sat, Jul

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Rainer Duffner
Am 15.07.2013 um 03:15 schrieb Adrian Chadd : > Guys, > > Devin runs a _lot_ of FreeBSD stuff at his work. Doubtlessly. It wouldn't make sense on a small scale. I assume, his system pre-dates most of the stuff nowadays filed under the "dev-ops" moniker (chef, puppet…). Probably also has (ha

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Teske, Devin
On Jul 14, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Craig Rodrigues wrote: On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Teske, Devin mailto:devin.te...@fisglobal.com>> wrote: I assume that poudiere builds packages from ports. Yes. That's not how we build package repositories here (and would expect that there are many more

panic: no init

2013-07-14 Thread Eugene M. Zheganin
Hi. I'm using FreeBSD as a desktop. When updating from r251990 to a higher revision (both GENERIC kernels) I got 'panic: no init' message after mountroot (I'm using zfs, seems like mountroot was successful). Nothing changed in my configuration, so I have totally no clue. Right now I'm running r251

Re: lost my r2xxxxx subversion id in uname & kern.version

2013-07-14 Thread Sergey V. Dyatko
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 18:15:52 +0200 cpghost wrote: > On 07/13/13 03:03, Dan Mack wrote: > > I'm not sure exactly when but recently I've lost the subversion id > > from kern.version and hence uname and motd. > > > > Subsequent fresh rebuilds from source don't bring it back even after > > wiping out

Re: lost my r2xxxxx subversion id in uname & kern.version

2013-07-14 Thread Sergey V. Dyatko
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 18:15:52 +0200 cpghost wrote: > On 07/13/13 03:03, Dan Mack wrote: > > I'm not sure exactly when but recently I've lost the subversion id > > from kern.version and hence uname and motd. > > > > Subsequent fresh rebuilds from source don't bring it back even after > > wiping out

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Baptiste Daroussin
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:12:19AM +, Teske, Devin wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:30 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > > On 14/07/2013 06:48, Teske, Devin wrote: > >> Question: Where can I learn more about the actual format of what's in > >> the new tarballs? This is going to be important not f

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Baptiste Daroussin
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 07:29:50AM +, Teske, Devin wrote: > > > Or you > > can maintain the old cruft for your business -- just don't expect > > anyone else to use it, or even want to. > > > > > I have no intention of making old-world packages... but I also have no > intention of using "p

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Baptiste Daroussin
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 04:52:26PM +, Teske, Devin wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2013, at 8:01 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > > > On 14 Jul 2013, at 08:29, Teske, Devin wrote: > >> > > Simple, really. > > Let's take RPM for example. The RPM package format has been ported to other > platforms. So does p

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Baptiste Daroussin
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 06:51:00PM -0500, Mark Felder wrote: > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013, at 13:54, Teske, Devin wrote: > > > > > > If FTP access (or any of the other remote access methods) are going away > > for HEAD pkg access, I'll need to know so I can make the appropriate > > changes in the HEAD

Re: [HEADSUP] No more pkg_install on HEAD by default

2013-07-14 Thread Baptiste Daroussin
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:52:19PM +, Teske, Devin wrote: > On Jul 12, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I have just committed (r253305) a change the make pkg_install not being > > built > > and installed by default on HEAD. > > > > If you are still relying on it