Re: private ports and pkgs versioning
On 2016-10-18 14:54, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:49:06AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> Yes, there is a lot of useful stuff in the ports tree to support local >> ports or even whole local categories of ports. I can't recall now how I >> learned about all this stuff -- it may well have been just be a >> combination of reading Makefiles and hints dropped on mailing lists. I >> cannot recall a document describing this stuff anywhere. > > I don't believe that there is one. > > I'm sure there are N locally-grown solutions out in the wild. > > We ought to work together to poll people on what they use. > > As for adding the category, I think there's a quick fix, if you don't > care about building INDEX. Add USE_LOCAL_MK=yes to your Makefile > invocations, and use the patch below. > > Note: I haven't tried this yet, so adding the category to ports/Makefile > may also be necessary to pacify ports/Mk/bsd.port.subdir.mk (e.g. INDEX.) > > Index: ports/Mk/bsd.local.mk > === > --- ports/Mk/bsd.local.mk (revision 423944) > +++ ports/Mk/bsd.local.mk (working copy) > @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ > # time should live. > # > > +VALID_CATEGORIES+= local > + > .endif # !defined(_POSTMKINCLUDED) && !defined(Local_Pre_Include) > > .if defined(_POSTMKINCLUDED) && !defined(Local_Post_Include) > > mcl It's easier for the user to define VALID_CATEGORIES+= in /etc/make.conf, this way the own category is not lost in case someone wipes /usr/ports or uses portsnap. For poudriere this should be defined also in $localbase/poudriere/make.conf, I'm using this myself for since a long time. >From my memory (don't nail me down): I think synth is able to use packages from pkg.FreeBSD.org and can build only packages with changed OPTIONS, but to be sure better ask marino@ -- olli ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Please commit net-p2p/qbittorrent (bug#209132)
Hi! > This popular port has been delayed and labeled broken due to some > complications which are now resolved. > > > There are 2 ports that need to be updated: > > 1. Patch for net-p2p/libtorrent-rasterbar is the copy of the patch that > its maintainer submitted, so it should be approved implicitly Sorry, I'm confused. Which one is the correct one ? There's 212235 with the patch https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=174180 from the maintainer and there's 209132 with the patch https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=175898 I've looked at both and at least the diff is not identical ? I've not investigated all the details... > 2. net-p2p/qbittorrent itself -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go ! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: private ports and pkgs versioning
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Mark Linimonwrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 02:52:34PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> Hmmm... looks like this is handled in the 30 or so lines starting at >> line 1179 of bsd.port.mk > > Wouldn't the patch to ports/Makefile just be the following? > > .if exists(${.CURDIR}/Makefile.local) > .include "${.CURDIR}/Makefile.local" > .endif > > Again, I _think_ this is only necessary if you are building INDEX. > > mcl > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" /usr/ports/Makefile.local is already included for consideration @ bsd.port.subdir.mk:142 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: private ports and pkgs versioning
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 02:52:34PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Hmmm... looks like this is handled in the 30 or so lines starting at > line 1179 of bsd.port.mk Wouldn't the patch to ports/Makefile just be the following? .if exists(${.CURDIR}/Makefile.local) .include "${.CURDIR}/Makefile.local" .endif Again, I _think_ this is only necessary if you are building INDEX. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: private ports and pkgs versioning
On 10/18/16 13:54, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:49:06AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> Yes, there is a lot of useful stuff in the ports tree to support local >> ports or even whole local categories of ports. I can't recall now how I >> learned about all this stuff -- it may well have been just be a >> combination of reading Makefiles and hints dropped on mailing lists. I >> cannot recall a document describing this stuff anywhere. > > I don't believe that there is one. > > I'm sure there are N locally-grown solutions out in the wild. > > We ought to work together to poll people on what they use. > > As for adding the category, I think there's a quick fix, if you don't > care about building INDEX. Add USE_LOCAL_MK=yes to your Makefile > invocations, and use the patch below. > > Note: I haven't tried this yet, so adding the category to ports/Makefile > may also be necessary to pacify ports/Mk/bsd.port.subdir.mk (e.g. INDEX.) > > Index: ports/Mk/bsd.local.mk > === > --- ports/Mk/bsd.local.mk (revision 423944) > +++ ports/Mk/bsd.local.mk (working copy) > @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ > # time should live. > # > > +VALID_CATEGORIES+= local > + > .endif # !defined(_POSTMKINCLUDED) && !defined(Local_Pre_Include) > > .if defined(_POSTMKINCLUDED) && !defined(Local_Post_Include) > > mcl > In many places in the ports you can drop in a Makefile.local that gets unconditionally included into the existing Makefile at that level. There are several names that get treated similarly -- so you can have (I think) Makefile.amd64 which is only included when compiling for that architecture. The idea being if you add a whole new file, you won't get merge conflicts when updating from SVN. There's a Makefile.inc that goes one level above that gets included similarly. Unfortunately it looks like this doesn't apply at the very top level of the ports, otherwise this would be a really easy way of adding a custom category. Hmmm... looks like this is handled in the 30 or so lines starting at line 1179 of bsd.port.mk Cheers, Matthew signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: private ports and pkgs versioning
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:49:06AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Yes, there is a lot of useful stuff in the ports tree to support local > ports or even whole local categories of ports. I can't recall now how I > learned about all this stuff -- it may well have been just be a > combination of reading Makefiles and hints dropped on mailing lists. I > cannot recall a document describing this stuff anywhere. I don't believe that there is one. I'm sure there are N locally-grown solutions out in the wild. We ought to work together to poll people on what they use. As for adding the category, I think there's a quick fix, if you don't care about building INDEX. Add USE_LOCAL_MK=yes to your Makefile invocations, and use the patch below. Note: I haven't tried this yet, so adding the category to ports/Makefile may also be necessary to pacify ports/Mk/bsd.port.subdir.mk (e.g. INDEX.) Index: ports/Mk/bsd.local.mk === --- ports/Mk/bsd.local.mk (revision 423944) +++ ports/Mk/bsd.local.mk (working copy) @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ # time should live. # +VALID_CATEGORIES+= local + .endif # !defined(_POSTMKINCLUDED) && !defined(Local_Pre_Include) .if defined(_POSTMKINCLUDED) && !defined(Local_Post_Include) mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Please commit net-p2p/qbittorrent (bug#209132)
This popular port has been delayed and labeled broken due to some complications which are now resolved. There are 2 ports that need to be updated: 1. Patch for net-p2p/libtorrent-rasterbar is the copy of the patch that its maintainer submitted, so it should be approved implicitly 2. net-p2p/qbittorrent itself Thank you, Yuri ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
required shared library libjawt.so not found
11.0-RELEASE-p1 amd64 # pkg info -xo pkg- pkg-1.8.7_3ports-mgmt/pkg # pkg check -srdBa Checking all packages: 29% (jogamp-jogl-2.2.4) /usr/local/lib/libnativewindow_awt.so - required shared library libjawt.so not found Checking all packages: 77% (swt-devel-3.7.1_2,1) /usr/local/lib/libswt-awt-gtk-3738.so - required shared library libjawt.so not found Checking all packages: 100% # pkg delete -f swt-devel openjdk8 jogamp-jogl # pkg install jogamp-jogl # pkg check -srdBa Checking all packages: 29% (jogamp-jogl-2.2.4) /usr/local/lib/libnativewindow_awt.so - required shared library libjawt.so not found Checking all packages: 77% (swt-devel-3.7.1_2,1) /usr/local/lib/libswt-awt-gtk-3738.so - required shared library libjawt.so not found Checking all packages: 100% # ls -al /usr/local/openjdk8/jre/lib/amd64/libjawt.so -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 6512 Oct 16 18:38 /usr/local/openjdk8/jre/lib/amd64/libjawt.so # ls -al /usr/local/openjdk8/lib/amd64/libjawt.so -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 6754 Oct 16 18:38 /usr/local/openjdk8/lib/amd64/libjawt.so Have I missed something? Thanks Anton ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date
Dear port maintainer, The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate, submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated, you can safely ignore the entry. You will not be e-mailed again for any of the port/version combinations below. Full details can be found at the following URL: http://portscout.freebsd.org/po...@freebsd.org.html Port| Current version | New version +-+ math/giacxcas | 1.2.2-57| 1.2.2-95 +-+ net/p5-Net-Ping | 2.41| 2.51 +-+ www/rtv | 1.9.1 | v1.13.0 +-+ If any of the above results are invalid, please check the following page for details on how to improve portscout's detection and selection of distfiles on a per-port basis: http://portscout.freebsd.org/info/portscout-portconfig.txt Thanks. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: private ports and pkgs versioning
Thomas Mueller wrote on 2016/10/18 09:31: I too might like to compile something not in the ports tree, would like to make a category "mystuff" but don't really know how to make it work. I might get an error message for invalid category, as happened to me once in NetBSD with pkgsrc, and I also don't want it to be changed by svn update, or cvs update in the case of NetBSD and pkgsrc. One package of possible interest is Steffen Daode Nurpmeso's s-nail, to be renamed to s-mailx, which is an update to heirloom-mailx and mailx or nail; included in Arch Linux and OpenBSD ports. Or maybe I want to test a modification to an existing package. You can start by modifying existing port. If you want to and your own local category you should add it to /usr/ports/Makefile first (SUBDIR += mycategory) Then you should add new SUBDIR line to /usr/ports/mycategory/Makefile Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: private ports and pkgs versioning
On 18/10/2016 06:58, Julian Elischer wrote: > Is there a standard way of naming a pkg that is locally compiled (maybe > with a different set of options, or a local patch) so that it doesn't > get confused with generic ports that are from freeBSD.org? If you're not making local changes to the port, it's usual that you'ld just call your locally compiled package the same as the generic ports. If you're creating a new local port, or a variant on one of the standard ports, then you should use a distinct name. Using PKGNAMEPREFIX is probably the simplest way to do that, but obviously that may cause problems where PKGNAMEPREFIX is already in use -- eg. any python or perl or apache24 port. Similarly there's a PKGNAMESUFFIX but similar caveats apply. If you go down this route, you'ld also have to chase any dependency lines in ports you want to use that depend on your local variant, so you might end up with a quite significantly modified ports tree. > I want to use mostly standard pkgs but need to compile a few myself > (this can't be an uncommon requirement). The usual way of handling this is to build your own repo using poudriere (or otherwise), and add this to /usr/local/etc/pkg/repos/foo.conf at higher priority than the generic FreeBSD repos. pkg(8) will generally prefer packages from higher priority repos. Note that building a repo like this with poudriere will include not just the packages you're interested in but also all of their build- and run- time dependencies. > How can I name my variant pkgs so the the pkg program (and ports) can > still know that it is a satisfactory supplier of prerequisite components? > > e.g. if a pkg wants a specific rev of libxml2 how much does it use of > the name libxml2-2.9.2_2 ? pkg(8) doesn't have a mechanism for only looking for one specific version of a package -- it's always going to look for the most recent version of any package. You could take a local copy of the port and add a PORTEPOCH, but otherwise freeze the port at your preferred version. The PORTEPOCH will automatically make your copy a higher version that what's available from the general ports tree, so pkg(8) should prefer it. Note that doing this will foil the mechanisms used by pkg-audit(8) to warn you of any vulnerabilities in libxml2 > Can (should) I add stuff after the '_'? If I do will it still recognise > my pkg file and if I do are there any rules regarding *WHAT* I can put > there. Package versions look like this: aa.aa.aa_b,c where aa.aa.aa is the upstream version number, or derived from it. 'b' is the PORTREVISION which is an integer and omitted if zero. 'c' is the PORTEPOCH -- again an integer and ommitted when zero. PORTREVISION is reset to zero whenever the upstream version changes, but PORTEPOCH if used is there for ever and much be monotonically increasing. When comparing two versions, the PORTEPOCH has the greatest significance, then the upstream version, then the PORTREVISION. Only the upstream version can contain non-digits -- '.' as a field separator and single alpha characters in some fields. The ports will take the upstream DISTVERSION and automatically produce a PORTVERSION modified according to these rules. The point of this transformation is to ensure that versions sort in a useful way. So, for example, the lang/perl5.22 port contains: PORTNAME= perl DISTVERSION=${PERL_VERSION}-RC4 PORTREVISION= 0 where: % make -V PERL_VERSION 5.22.3 and this results in a PKGNAME of: % pkg info -x perl5 perl5-5.22.3.r4 > lastly is there somewhere I should be looking to read all this > information rather than pestering the mailing list? The Porter's Handbook contains a lot of this stuff, and there is a lot of documentation in the comments in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk and other Makefiles in that directory. The rules on package version numbers are expressed in code in pkg-version(8) -- here: https://github.com/freebsd/pkg/blob/master/libpkg/pkg_version.c > What I'd like to have is my own depot with something like: > > === > > libsmi-0.4.8_1.txz > libxcb-1.11.1.txz > libxml2-2.9.2_2-mumble.3.txz > lsof-4.88,8.txz > lsof-4.90.b,8.txz > m4-1.4.17_1,1.txz > > === > > where 'mumble.3' is a locally defined addition, but all the rest of the > pkgs are straight from pkg.freebsd.org, (or at least compile in default > form). That 2.9.2_2-mumble.3 version string doesn't play by the rules. For a start, the system will consider the version number to be everything after the *last* '-' character in the pkg name, not counting any .txz or similar suffix. So your version here is 'mumble.3' which is still illegal according to the rules. It also considered everything before the last '-' character to be the package name so instead of 'libxml2' you've now got 'libxml2-2.9.2_2' and that won't match properly when trying to resolve dependencies. You'ld be better off aiming for a version like this: libxml2-2.9.2.m3_2.txz which you could achieve by directly
Re: private ports and pkgs versioning
> Is there a standard way of naming a pkg that is locally compiled (maybe with a > different set of options, or a local patch) so that it doesn't get confused > with generic ports that are from freeBSD.org? > I want to use mostly standard pkgs but need to compile a few myself (this > can't be an uncommon requirement). > How can I name my variant pkgs so the the pkg program (and ports) can still > know that it is a satisfactory supplier of prerequisite components? > e.g. if a pkg wants a specific rev of libxml2 how much does it use of the > name libxml2-2.9.2_2 ? > Can (should) I add stuff after the '_'? If I do will it still recognise my > pkg file and if I do are there any rules regarding *WHAT* I can put there. > lastly is there somewhere I should be looking to read all this information > rather than pestering the mailing list? > What I'd like to have is my own depot with something like: === > libsmi-0.4.8_1.txz > libxcb-1.11.1.txz > libxml2-2.9.2_2-mumble.3.txz > lsof-4.88,8.txz > lsof-4.90.b,8.txz > m4-1.4.17_1,1.txz === > where 'mumble.3' is a locally defined addition, but all the rest of the pkgs > are straight from pkg.freebsd.org, (or at least compile in default form). > This "kind-of" works, but the rules of play are not defined anyhere I have > read, so I don't know if it's going to suddenly fail one day. > Also it's be really nice if there were a variable I could set to "mumble.3" so > that I don't have to do a manual rename, because between the time that the > package is made and it is renamed there is a 'misnamed' package sitting around > acting as a potential source of confusion. > thanks, > Julian I too might like to compile something not in the ports tree, would like to make a category "mystuff" but don't really know how to make it work. I might get an error message for invalid category, as happened to me once in NetBSD with pkgsrc, and I also don't want it to be changed by svn update, or cvs update in the case of NetBSD and pkgsrc. One package of possible interest is Steffen Daode Nurpmeso's s-nail, to be renamed to s-mailx, which is an update to heirloom-mailx and mailx or nail; included in Arch Linux and OpenBSD ports. Or maybe I want to test a modification to an existing package. Tom ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"