Re: portupgrade + FLAVORS

nge makes it into the port. The ref'd PR > > https://github.com/freebsd/portupgrade/pull/72 would be the path to that, and I'm pretty sure Bryan (CC'd) would also be the guy to do that. I haven't seen him comment on it one way or another, though I've also scarcely seen him anywhere else on ML's or other

Re: portupgrade + FLAVORS

Yeah, bdrewery is listed as the maintainer of portupgrade in its Makefile. On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 06:05:24PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: > Oops. Disregard. Confusing portupgrade with portmaster. > -- > Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer > E-mail: rkober.

Re: portupgrade + FLAVORS

Oops. Disregard. Confusing portupgrade with portmaster. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 6:03 PM Kevin Oberman wrote: > Looks like the maintai

Re: portupgrade + FLAVORS

019 at 08:51:57PM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > > For any portupgrade users still out there wishing for FLAVOR support, > > I have patches to add it. I've been running them here locally for a > > few weeks without incident (apart from an extra upgrade or two > > actu

Re: portupgrade + FLAVORS

On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 08:51:57PM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > For any portupgrade users still out there wishing for FLAVOR support, > I have patches to add it. I've been running them here locally for a > few weeks without incident (apart from an extra upgrade or two > actu

Re: Problem with portupgrade and py27-tkinter

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 04:07:20PM -0400 I heard the voice of Robert Huff, and lo! it spake thus: > Montgomery-Smith, Stephen writes: > > > I have both py27-tkinter and py36-tkinter installed. When I do > > portupgrade, it tries to upgrade py27-tkinter to py36-tkinter

Problem with portupgrade and py27-tkinter

Montgomery-Smith, Stephen writes: > I have both py27-tkinter and py36-tkinter installed. When I do > portupgrade, it tries to upgrade py27-tkinter to py36-tkinter: Am I correct in remembering portupgrade dosen't handle flavors? Respec

Problem with portupgrade and py27-tkinter

I have both py27-tkinter and py36-tkinter installed. When I do portupgrade, it tries to upgrade py27-tkinter to py36-tkinter: portupgrade -a [Reading data from pkg(8) ... - 1061 packages found - done] ** Detected a package name change: py27-tkinter (x11-toolkits/py-tkinter) -> 'py36-tkin

Re: portupgrade + FLAVORS

Right On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:54 PM Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > > My best guess is still something along the way tweaked up the patch > you're trying; check the md5 vs the one in my earlier mail. saved from (shudder) Gmail tingo@kg-core1$ md5 patch-flavors_gmail MD5 (patch-flavors_gmail) =

Re: portupgrade + FLAVORS

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 04:06:00PM +0200 I heard the voice of Torfinn Ingolfsen, and lo! it spake thus: > > Ah. I use portsnap to upgrade my ports tree. Is there a delay or > difference? A delay, sure, but the last commit in devel/portupgrade was over a year ago. You'd probab

Re: portupgrade + FLAVORS

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:51 PM Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > > Torfinn, > > > It doesn't apply cleanly to portupgrade in an up to date ports tree > > Hm. Seems to work fine here. > > % svn up > Updating '.': > At revision 498434. Ah. I use portsnap to upgrad

Re: portupgrade + FLAVORS

Marco, > Any reason why not just submit it in Bugzilla? Well, I s'pose one _could_ split a hair and argue that it's FreeBSD-specific, and so should be a ports patch rather than an upstream change. But that'd be an awful fine hair to try and cleave in this case :p It's in a PR to upstream.

Re: portupgrade + FLAVORS

Torfinn, > It doesn't apply cleanly to portupgrade in an up to date ports tree Hm. Seems to work fine here. % svn up Updating '.': At revision 498434. % ports-make.sh clean patch ===> Cleaning for portupgrade-2.4.16,2 ===> License BSD3CLAUSE accepted by the user ===> portupgr

Re: portupgrade + FLAVORS

Hello, On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:53 AM Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > > For any portupgrade users still out there wishing for FLAVOR support, > I have patches to add it. I've been running them here locally for a > few weeks without incident (apart from an extra upgrade or two > a

Re: portupgrade + FLAVORS

On Sun, 7 Apr 2019, the wise Matthew D. Fuller wrote: For any portupgrade users still out there wishing for FLAVOR support, I have patches to add it. I've been running them here locally for a few weeks without incident (apart from an extra upgrade or two actually working without manual

portupgrade + FLAVORS

For any portupgrade users still out there wishing for FLAVOR support, I have patches to add it. I've been running them here locally for a few weeks without incident (apart from an extra upgrade or two actually working without manual intervention/resort to portmaster, that is). Dropping

Re: portupgrade vs. portmaster

from Jonathan Chen and my previous post: > On 30 April 2018 at 22:33, Thomas Mueller wrote: [...] > > I see hardly any mention of synth on the freebsd-ports list. Have synth > > users become disenchanted? > There are a growing number of synth users. They just

portmaster plans (was: Re: portupgrade vs. portmaster)

Am 30.04.18 um 12:33 schrieb Thomas Mueller: > Current portmaster, even before FLAVORS, was clumsy upgrading a large number > of ports, especially when there is an upgrade of perl or png. The author of portmaster decided to abort the upgrade of all remaining ports, if any dependency failed for

Re: portupgrade vs. portmaster

On 30 April 2018 at 22:33, Thomas Mueller wrote: [...] > I see hardly any mention of synth on the freebsd-ports list. Have synth > users become disenchanted? There are a growing number of synth users. They just don't appear on the list 'cause the software just works. >

Re: portupgrade vs. portmaster

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:33:48 +, Thomas Mueller stated: >from STefan Esser: > >> I used to be a portupgrade user, long ago (years before the introduction >> of the new package tools), but then mobed over to using portmaster. > >> When the package system (PKG-NG)

Re: portupgrade vs. portmaster

from STefan Esser: > I used to be a portupgrade user, long ago (years before the introduction > of the new package tools), but then mobed over to using portmaster. > When the package system (PKG-NG) war completely reworked, I heard that > portupgrade was better adapted to the new to

portupgrade vs. portmaster (was: Re: Port directory not found:)

Am 30.04.18 um 05:45 schrieb Kevin Oberman: > portmaster(8) operates very similarly to portupgrade(8). There are some > differences that can bite you, though, so read the man page first. I used to be a portupgrade user, long ago (years before the introduction of the new package

Re: Flavors support of portupgrade

From: Ben Woods <woods...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Flavors support of portupgrade Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 05:20:47 + > Hi Yasuhiro, > Bryan Drewery has generously said he plans to look into this over the next > couple of weeks: > > https://lists.freebsd.org/piperma

Re: Flavors support of portupgrade

said he is working now. Then what about > portupgrade? Is anybody working? > > --- > Yasuhiro KIMURA > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send

Re: Flavors support of portupgrade

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 at 5:18 pm, Yasuhiro KIMURA <y...@utahime.org> wrote: > Hello. > > Poudriere and synth already support flavors. As for portmaster, Stefan > Esser (s...@freebsd.org) said he is working now. Then what about > portupgrade? Is anybody working? >

Flavors support of portupgrade

Hello. Poudriere and synth already support flavors. As for portmaster, Stefan Esser (s...@freebsd.org) said he is working now. Then what about portupgrade? Is anybody working? --- Yasuhiro KIMURA ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https

Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

On 12/03/17 19:26, Thomas Mueller wrote: from Baho Utot: I don't use HEAD. I use Quartlery with synth. It is just I expect a little more than amature hour. I was on Archlinux for 10 years and they are very bleeding edge. Almost No breakage in ten years. The only reason I left Linux was

Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

from Baho Utot: > I don't use HEAD. I use Quartlery with synth. It is just I expect a little > more than amature hour. I was on Archlinux for 10 years and they are very > bleeding edge. Almost No breakage in ten years. The only reason I left Linux > was systemd. After landing in FreeBSD the

Re: Getting off topic (Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc)

Quoting Baptiste Daroussin (from Fri, 6 Oct 2017 15:34:58 +0200): Speaking solely for myself, I am more than pleased by all the work Baptiste and fellow developers have put into the ports infrastructure. THANK YOU! But also, portmaster is a life saver for me with my 4GB

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 18:46:08 +1100 (EST) Dave Horsfall wrote > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Chris H wrote: > > >> I'll second that.-- George (old fart w/50 years software experience) > > > > WooHoo! another greybeard! I'm at ~50yrs myself! > > Only 47 years exp here (the last 42

Re: Getting off topic (Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc)

On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 01:28:59PM +, George Mitchell wrote: > On 10/06/17 04:20, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:13:42AM +, Steve Kargl wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 09:41:28AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:15:18PM +,

Getting off topic (Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc)

On 10/06/17 04:20, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:13:42AM +, Steve Kargl wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 09:41:28AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:15:18PM +, Steve Kargl wrote: On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:16:49PM -0400, Michael

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 10:08:54PM +, Baho Utot wrote: > > > On 10/05/17 16:27, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > > > > On 05/10/2017 19:54, Baho Utot wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 10/04/17 16:39, Ernie Luzar wrote: > > > > > > > Here's my take on that. > > > > > > > > The future direction has

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Friday 06 Oct 2017 00:29:17 tech-lists wrote: > I'd use packages more were it not for the received wisdom that mixing > packages and ports is a Bad Thing (tm) - is this still the case? The main thing is to keep your ports tree synchronised with the version used for the package repository.

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:13:42AM +, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 09:41:28AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:15:18PM +, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:16:49PM -0400, Michael W. Lucas wrote: > > > > > > > > Poudriere

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 09:41:28AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:15:18PM +, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:16:49PM -0400, Michael W. Lucas wrote: > > > > > > Poudriere really needs its own small book. Yes, you can do simple > > > poudriere

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Chris H wrote: I'll second that.-- George (old fart w/50 years software experience) WooHoo! another greybeard! I'm at ~50yrs myself! Only 47 years exp here (the last 42 with Unix). -- Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

n and simple examples are coming soon(c)(tm). This not only concerns portmaster but also portupgrade, tinderbox and ANY third party tools that works on the ports tree directly. Best regards, Bapt signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 06/10/2017 00:29, tech-lists wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 12:22:30PM +0100, Mike Clarke wrote: > >> the currently available package is built against php56. Using >> poudriere for this one task would >> be equivalent to using a steamroller to crack a peanut. Building >> phpMyAdmin from

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

Hi! > I'd vote to have Chris H be the maintainer of this port. > Why knock the guy if he wants to invest his time and > energy into doing something to help the project? > Does it cause anyone pain to see someone working on > maintaining the project? Why would someone say no you cannot maintain

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

I'd vote to have Chris H be the maintainer of this port. Why knock the guy if he wants to invest his time and energy into doing something to help the project? Does it cause anyone pain to see someone working on maintaining the project? Why would someone say no you cannot maintain this port,

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

Hi! > > a few inquiries regarding taking maintainer for the port. My request > > was ultimately declined. I was deemed unqualified. That judgement was > > unfounded. :( Right now, tz@ is the maintainer of ports-mgmt/portmaster. If someone wants to become maintainer, the best way is to look at

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 15:37:08 -0700 "Chris H" wrote > > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger wrote ---8<---8<--- > > > Seem a reasonable request? If [found] so, I'll solicit for qualified > > > individuals to work with me on it in a new thread. > > > > > > Thanks for your time, and

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 19:59:51 -0400 George Mitchell wrote > On 10/05/17 18:13, Adam Weinberger wrote: > >> [...] > >> Seem a reasonable request? If [found] so, I'll solicit for qualified > >> individuals to work with me on it in a new thread. > >> > >> Thanks for your time,

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 10/05/17 18:13, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> [...] >> Seem a reasonable request? If [found] so, I'll solicit for qualified >> individuals to work with me on it in a new thread. >> >> Thanks for your time, and consideration > > [...] > Let me know what you need. I'll give you whatever support I

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 12:22:30PM +0100, Mike Clarke wrote: the currently available package is built against php56. Using poudriere for this one task would be equivalent to using a steamroller to crack a peanut. Building phpMyAdmin from ports is no great problem for me and perhaps future

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:59:31 + Grzegorz Junka wrote > On 05/10/2017 22:15, Chris H wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:27:19 + Grzegorz Junka wrote > > > >> On 05/10/2017 19:54, Baho Utot wrote: > >>> > >>> On 10/04/17 16:39, Ernie Luzar wrote: > >>> >

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 05/10/2017 22:15, Chris H wrote: On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:27:19 + Grzegorz Junka wrote On 05/10/2017 19:54, Baho Utot wrote: On 10/04/17 16:39, Ernie Luzar wrote: Here's my take on that. The future direction has already been decided by the FreeBSD leaders 2 years

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 05/10/2017 22:27, Chris H wrote: On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:05:05 + Grzegorz Junka wrote On 05/10/2017 21:53, Chris H wrote: On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger wrote On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:13:36 -0600 Adam Weinberger wrote > > On 5 Oct, 2017, at 15:53, Chris H wrote: > > > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger wrote > > > >>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

hom currently depend on it, and continue to enjoy it's use. I hope this helps clear my intentions up. :) --Chris P.S. If it's regarding the "heated discussions" regarding it's removal; simply grep the ports mailing list. In fact, here's an excerpt from the SVN commit logs: ports-mgmt/port

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 05/10/2017 22:08, Baho Utot wrote: On 10/05/17 16:27, Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 05/10/2017 19:54, Baho Utot wrote: On 10/04/17 16:39, Ernie Luzar wrote: Here's my take on that. The future direction has already been decided by the FreeBSD leaders 2 years ago with their development

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 10/05/17 14:53, Chris H wrote: On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger wrote On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl wrote: On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 15:53, Chris H wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger wrote > >>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl >>> wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:27:19 + Grzegorz Junka wrote > On 05/10/2017 19:54, Baho Utot wrote: > > > > > > On 10/04/17 16:39, Ernie Luzar wrote: > > > >> Here's my take on that. > >> > >> The future direction has already been decided by the FreeBSD leaders > >> 2 years ago

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 10/05/17 16:27, Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 05/10/2017 19:54, Baho Utot wrote: On 10/04/17 16:39, Ernie Luzar wrote: Here's my take on that. The future direction has already been decided by the FreeBSD leaders 2 years ago with their development of a better pkg system. [putolin]

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 05/10/2017 21:53, Chris H wrote: On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger wrote On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl wrote: On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:54:32 -0400 Baho Utot wrote > On 10/04/17 16:39, Ernie Luzar wrote: > > > Here's my take on that. > > > > The future direction has already been decided by the FreeBSD leaders 2 > > years ago with their development of a better pkg system. > > >

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger wrote > > On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl > > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > >>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 05/10/2017 19:54, Baho Utot wrote: On 10/04/17 16:39, Ernie Luzar wrote: Here's my take on that. The future direction has already been decided by the FreeBSD leaders 2 years ago with their development of a better pkg system. [putolin] Don't let the few old school die hearts who

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

mewhere else instead. How many maintainers they would need to contact? I know of 4 - portmaster, portupgrade, synth and poudriere. Am I missing something? Oh, yes, the mighty make. But it will be mass-updated so no need to look for anyone. So, who should they contact to discuss the support f

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 10/04/17 16:39, Ernie Luzar wrote: Here's my take on that. The future direction has already been decided by the FreeBSD leaders 2 years ago with their development of a better pkg system. [putolin] Don't let the few old school die hearts who are afraid of any change and make the

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 10:52:51AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: (courtesy long-line wrap) > You seem to be fully convinced in a conspiracy to destroy > portmaster, and I don't get the impression that I'm going > to change your mind. All I can tell you is that impending > portmaster breakage is

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl >>> wrote: >>> Which brings me back to my i686 laptop with

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl > > wrote: > > Which brings me back to my i686 laptop with limited resources. > > If portmgr makes it impractical/impossible to easily install ports > >

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 08:25:20AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:59:41PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 07:51:16AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:35:58AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 04,

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:59:41PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 07:51:16AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:35:58AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:59:41PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 07:51:16AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:35:58AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:27:11PM -0700, Don Lewis wrote: > > > > > The system in

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 07:51:16AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:35:58AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:27:11PM -0700, Don Lewis wrote: > > > > The system in question is my last i686 laptop, which I > > > > use for libm development and

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:35:58AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:27:11PM -0700, Don Lewis wrote: > > > The system in question is my last i686 laptop, which I > > > use for libm development and testing. Once I cannot use > > > that laptop (whether hardware failure

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Wednesday 04 Oct 2017 16:39:25 Ernie Luzar wrote: > Here's my take on that. > > The future direction has already been decided by the FreeBSD leaders 2 > years ago with their development of a better pkg system. > > The package system with flavors will cover 90% of the user community > needs.

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:27:11PM -0700, Don Lewis wrote: > > The system in question is my last i686 laptop, which I > > use for libm development and testing. Once I cannot use > > that laptop (whether hardware failure or inability to > > update the installed ports), I'll stop worrying about a

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

Quoting Adam Weinberger (from Wed, 4 Oct 2017 19:14:22 -0600): Portmaster is still very much a part of the current landscape, and if somebody steps in to fix it (which I have every expectation will happen eventually), it will continue being a usable alternative. It

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

> On 5. Oct 2017, at 9:47 AM, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > > On 05.10.2017 08:14, Adam Weinberger wrote: > >> Poudriere wants to be everything to everybody > > First poudriere will have to learn how to run without noticeable overhead > compared to "just build from ports"

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 05.10.2017 08:14, Adam Weinberger wrote: > Poudriere wants to be everything to everybody First poudriere will have to learn how to run without noticeable overhead compared to "just build from ports" before it could became "everything to everybody" and it needs to became part of base system

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 05.10.2017 04:22, Steve Kargl wrote: > I did not state that the "environment is constrained by poudriere". > The environment is contrained due to resource limits. If you > only have 1 Gb of memory and 5-10 GB diskspace, then using poudriere > with zfs and jails is a nonstarter. Yes, I'm

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

ts and can say it's impossible. Pre-built packages from official repo are just too heavy and bloat the system with unneeded run-time dependencies not to mention impossibility to apply hot-fix in form of a patch. And running own repository is just not an option for such system. portupgrade (

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

Interesting thread, I've learned more about FreeBSD build here than almost anywhere else. Thanks OP for the email. On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 09:14 Adam Weinberger wrote: > > On 4 Oct, 2017, at 10:16, Michael W. Lucas > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

> On 4 Oct, 2017, at 10:16, Michael W. Lucas wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm doing tech edits on the new edition of "Absolute FreeBSD," and > stumbled into what's apparently a delicate topic. > > Some of my reviewers are happy I included portmaster in the book. > > Some

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 4 Oct, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:29:14PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: >> Please understand that I'm not trying to be obstinate, >> I'm trying to understand. > > Me too. > >> Background: years ago I managed the cluster of i386 blades >> that we used in package building.

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:29:14PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > Please understand that I'm not trying to be obstinate, > I'm trying to understand. Me too. > Background: years ago I managed the cluster of i386 blades > that we used in package building. 933MHz and 512MB IIRC. > So I am familiar

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:56:53PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > portmaster/portupgrade trade off doing less work with > less resources in an attempt to produce less rigorously > correct result That was what I thought I said :-) or at least was trying to

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

Please understand that I'm not trying to be obstinate, I'm trying to understand. Background: years ago I managed the cluster of i386 blades that we used in package building. 933MHz and 512MB IIRC. So I am familiar with constraint problems. On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:22:25PM -0700, Steve Kargl

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

rigorously correct results. I think it's the other way around. Poudriere does as much as a standalone build server would have to do, but it does it in a jail, so the main system isn't affected and can be used to non-build related work in the meantime. It's portmaster/portupgrade that trade off

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 04/10/2017 21:22, Steve Kargl wrote: On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:30:49PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 04/10/2017 19:40, Steve Kargl wrote: Ahem, yeah, so I'm not allowed to request a short description on how to use poudiere in a resource constrained environment? The environment isn't

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:30:49PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > > On 04/10/2017 19:40, Steve Kargl wrote: > > Ahem, yeah, so I'm not allowed to request a short description > > on how to use poudiere in a resource constrained environment? > > > > The environment isn't constrained by poudriere

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

rious options not to their recommended values - see > defects I have been raising on https://www.freebsd.org/suppor > t/bugreports.html But at least I am not able to install them until they > are fixed. > > Maybe I am just too ambitious or maybe poudriere is more idiot-proof? I > guess por

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:56:00PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > Maybe I am just too ambitious or maybe poudriere is more > idiot-proof? My possibly incorrect understanding is that poudriere trades off doing a lot more work in an attempt to produce more rigorously correct results. mcl

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 04:39:25PM -0400, Ernie Luzar wrote: > even the native ports system usage on personal machines > wwill fade away. I have seen this claim many times by users but AFAIR that was never a goal. The feeling was that _most_ users would migrate to using packages, once using

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

o ambitious or maybe poudriere is more idiot-proof? I guess portmaster or portupgrade may work fine if one uses the default options, but in that case, hey, why bother? Just use the compiled packages! If you try to change some ports to non-default options, and something doesn't compile, portmaster/po

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:13:16PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > I was trying > to compile with the system that was being updated at the > same time - this can't possibly work (or can it?). It works somewhere between "quite often" to "nearly all the time". It can vary depending on the

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

Michael W. Lucas wrote: Hi, I'm doing tech edits on the new edition of "Absolute FreeBSD," and stumbled into what's apparently a delicate topic. Some of my reviewers are happy I included portmaster in the book. Some reviewers beg me not to include it. Unfortunately, people will be reading

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

n no more than 1 job at a time. Poudriere itself doesn't take any additional resources, it's just a dedicated jail and a bunch of scripts. I would rather say that the amount of resources poudriere takes to compile stuff is normal, the baseline. Portmaster or portupgrade make a compromise - unst

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

n something is wrong. The handbook has it covered in just a few paragraphs: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/ports-poudriere.html When I moved to FreeBSD I tried for months to use portmaster and portupgrade because that was the official way described in the handbook. But there were always problems.

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:57:08PM -0400, George Mitchell wrote: > On 10/04/17 14:14, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:21:26AM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Steve Kargl < > >> s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Oct 04,

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 10/04/17 14:14, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:21:26AM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Steve Kargl < >> s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:16:49PM -0400, Michael W. Lucas wrote: Poudriere really

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:21:26AM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Steve Kargl < > s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:16:49PM -0400, Michael W. Lucas wrote: > > > > > > Poudriere really needs its own small book. Yes, you can do

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Steve Kargl < s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:16:49PM -0400, Michael W. Lucas wrote: > > > > Poudriere really needs its own small book. Yes, you can do simple > > poudriere installs, but once you start covering it properly

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:16:49PM -0400, Michael W. Lucas wrote: > > Poudriere really needs its own small book. Yes, you can do simple > poudriere installs, but once you start covering it properly the docs > quickly expand. My notes alone are longer than my af3e chapter > limits. (I'll probably

Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc

On 10/04/17 12:16, Michael W. Lucas wrote: > Hi, > > I'm doing tech edits on the new edition of "Absolute FreeBSD," and > stumbled into what's apparently a delicate topic. > > Some of my reviewers are happy I included portmaster in the book. > > Some reviewers beg me not to include it. [...]

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >