On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
Kurt Abahar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Side note: I'm asking because I would definitely be
willing to contribute since this would make using
ports and packages together much easier.
I think the issue is one of building tens of thousands of applications
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Thierry Thomas wrote:
Le Ven 27 jul 07 à 3:44:32 +0200, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
écrivait :
Kurt Abahar wrote:
I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of
time to compile them. Therefore, I'm trying to use
packages as much
On 2007-Jul-27 07:51:57 +0100, Matthew Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be feasible to use CVS tags to mark the state of the ports
tree whenever a package is successfully rebuilt by the cluster and
pushed out to the FTP servers?
This would generate an immense amount of CVS repo churn and
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:07:25 +1000
Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the problem is more that there's a noticable delay between a
port being updated and a matching set of packages being available.
At least for me, it hardly ever is an actual problem. I mean, building ports
from
--- Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 26, 2007, at 4:14 PM, Kurt Abahar wrote:
I'm trying to find a way to keep the ports tree
synchronized with that from which the latest
packages
in packages-6-stable were built.
Is there a way to accomplish this?
Sure, you probably
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to find a way to keep the ports tree
synchronized with that from which the latest packages
in packages-6-stable were built.
Is there a way to accomplish this?
Thank you
Be a
Kurt Abahar wrote:
--- Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you can describe in more detail what you're
trying to
accomplish. Leave out potential solutions, just
describe what your
goal is.
I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of
time to compile them. Therefore, I'm
Kurt Abahar wrote:
I have tried the portupgrade way, but unfortunately
the packages lag behind ports the majority of the
time.
It's actually 100% of the time, and always will be.
This led me to think that keeping the ports tree
a little behind HEAD would be a better solution.
However, I
On Jul 26, 2007, at 4:14 PM, Kurt Abahar wrote:
I'm trying to find a way to keep the ports tree
synchronized with that from which the latest packages
in packages-6-stable were built.
Is there a way to accomplish this?
Sure, you probably want something like portupgrade -P or
portupgrade -PP
--- Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No such facility
exists, and I don't imagine anyone creating one any
time soon because
it would be VERY hard to accomplish for a large
number of reasons.
If you don't mind, could you please elaborate on this?
Side note: I'm asking because I would
--- Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you can describe in more detail what you're
trying to
accomplish. Leave out potential solutions, just
describe what your
goal is.
I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of
time to compile them. Therefore, I'm trying to use
packages
Le Ven 27 jul 07 à 3:44:32 +0200, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
écrivait :
Kurt Abahar wrote:
I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of
time to compile them. Therefore, I'm trying to use
packages as much as possible. After updating the ports
tree using portsnap, portupgrade
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to find a way to keep the ports tree
synchronized with the latest packages in order to
minimize version mismatches and to allow easy mixing
between them. So far I've been using a hack that does
a listing of the packages-6-stable directory on the
freebsd ftp, and uses the
13 matches
Mail list logo
