Re: [maybe spam] New 2017Q4 branch

[Julian Elischer]

On 3/10/17 3:01 am, René Ladan wrote:
can we please have a way of finding out the revision at which the 
latest HEAD branch compile was done at?

(and for that matter the latest recompile on the quarterly branch).



Hi,

The 2017Q4 branch has been created. It means that the next update on the
quarterly packages will be on the 2017Q4 branch.

A lot of things happened in the last three months:
- pkg 1.10.1
- New USES: (none)
- Removed USES: execinfo twisted
- New keywords: (none)
- Removed keywords: (none)
- Default version of GCC switched to 6
- Firefox 56.0
- Firefox-esr 52.4.0
- Chromium 61.0.3163.100
- Ruby 2.2.8, 2.3.5, 2.4.1
- gcc 6.4.0
- ghc 8.0.2
- devel/cmake-modules merged into devel/cmake
- devel/cargo merged into lang/rust, as Cargo is now provided with Rust

Next quarterly package builds will start on Tuesday October 3th, at 1:00
PM and
should be available on your closest mirrors few days later.

For those stat nerds out there, here's what happened during the last 3
months on head:
Number of commits: 5876
Number of committers: 175
Most active committers:
1542  sunpoet
  261  amdmi3
  215  jbeich
  180  swills
  153  olgeni
  148  dbaio
  144  ultima
  126  antoine
  120  jrm
  104  mat
Diffstat: 16612 files changed, 245701 insertions(+), 152531 deletions(-)

and on the 2017Q3 branch:
Number of commits: 345
Number of committers: 54
Most active committers:
   59  feld
   51  jbeich
   40  tz
   18  sunpoet
   17  cpm
   13  koobs
   11  riggs
8  ultima
8  junovitch
8  joneum
Diffstat: 955 files changed, 13462 insertions(+), 16764 deletions(-)

Regards,
René Ladan



___
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"

devel/llvm40 and llvm50 builds vs. powerpc (32-bit) FreeBSD: "Host compiler appears to require libatomic, but cannot find it."

[Mark Millard]

This is a system where world was built with system clang 5
and there is no gcc 4.2.1 installed: only the system-clang
are on the old PowerMacs I'm testing on. The building of
ports was via poudriere and system clang.

Even with the lldb build, the lld build, the LIT build, the
Extras build, and the Docs build disabled the below happens
for 32-bit powerpc --on both devel/llvm40 and devel/llvm50 .

Note that the system-clang-5 builds fine, despite lack
of 64-bit atomics, including building WITH_CLANG_FULL=
and WITH_CLANG_EXTRAS= . Building devel/llvm40 and
devel/llvm50 works fine targeting powerpc64 instead
of 32-bit powerpc.

As for 32-bit powerpc goes. . .

I would expect lldb to need to be disabled. Possibly
lld as well. (Also, neither would work if they built
as I understand.) Extras might be a mix of things that
could be built and things that can not for 32-bit
powerpc --but might all be buildable? Doc should
probably be fine to build.


The problem ( devel/llvm40 example):


. . .
---Begin OPTIONS List---
===> The following configuration options are available for llvm40-4.0.1_1:
 CLANG=on: Build clang
 DOCS=off: Build and/or install documentation
 EXTRAS=off: Extra clang tools
 LIT=off: Install lit and FileCheck test tools
 LLD=off: Install lld, the LLVM linker
 LLDB=off: Install lldb, the LLVM debugger
===> Use 'make config' to modify these settings
---End OPTIONS List---
. . .
-- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB
-- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Success
-- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS64_WITHOUT_LIB
-- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS64_WITHOUT_LIB - Failed
-- Looking for __atomic_load_8 in atomic
-- Looking for __atomic_load_8 in atomic - not found
CMake Error at cmake/modules/CheckAtomic.cmake:74 (message):
  Host compiler appears to require libatomic, but cannot find it.
Call Stack (most recent call first):
  cmake/config-ix.cmake:307 (include)
  CMakeLists.txt:582 (include)


-- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!
See also 
"/wrkdirs/usr/ports/devel/llvm40/work/.build/CMakeFiles/CMakeOutput.log".
See also 
"/wrkdirs/usr/ports/devel/llvm40/work/.build/CMakeFiles/CMakeError.log".
*** Error code 1

Stop.
make: stopped in /usr/ports/devel/llvm40
=>> Cleaning up wrkdir
===>  Cleaning for llvm40-4.0.1_1
build of devel/llvm40 | llvm40-4.0.1_1 ended at Mon Oct  2 17:16:35 PDT 2017
build time: 00:05:14
!!! build failure encountered !!!

Context details:

# uname -apKU
FreeBSD FBSDG4S 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT  r324071M  powerpc powerpc 
1200047 1200047

# cc --version
FreeBSD clang version 5.0.0 (tags/RELEASE_500/final 312559) (based on LLVM 
5.0.0svn)
Target: powerpc-unknown-freebsd12.0
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /usr/bin

# svnlite info /usr/ports/ | grep "Re[plv]"
Relative URL: ^/head
Repository Root: https://svn.freebsd.org/ports
Repository UUID: 35697150-7ecd-e111-bb59-0022644237b5
Revision: 450478
Last Changed Rev: 450478

# more ~/src.configs/src.conf.powerpc-clang-bootstrap.amd64-host 
TO_TYPE=powerpc
#
KERNCONF=GENERICvtsc-NODBG
TARGET=${TO_TYPE}
.if ${.MAKE.LEVEL} == 0
TARGET_ARCH=${TO_TYPE}
.export TARGET_ARCH
.endif
#
WITH_CROSS_COMPILER=
WITHOUT_SYSTEM_COMPILER=
#
WITH_LIBCPLUSPLUS=
WITH_BINUTILS_BOOTSTRAP=
WITH_ELFTOOLCHAIN_BOOTSTRAP=
WITH_CLANG_BOOTSTRAP=
WITH_CLANG=
WITH_CLANG_IS_CC=
WITH_CLANG_FULL=
WITH_CLANG_EXTRAS=
WITHOUT_LLD=
# lldb requires missing atomic 8-byte operations for powerpc (non-64)
WITHOUT_LLDB=
#
WITH_BOOT=
WITHOUT_LIB32=
#
WITHOUT_GCC_BOOTSTRAP=
WITHOUT_GCC=
WITHOUT_GCC_IS_CC=
WITHOUT_GNUCXX=
#
NO_WERROR=
#
# Use WERROR to avoid stopping at the likes of:
# error: implicit conversion from 'int' to 'int8_t' (aka 'signed char') changes 
value from 128 to -128 [-Werror,-Wconstant-conversion]
WERROR=
MALLOC_PRODUCTION=
#
WITH_REPRODUCIBLE_BUILD=
WITH_DEBUG_FILES=

===
Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net

___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Stari Karp]

On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 12:26 +0300, abi wrote:
> 02.10.2017 12:07, Carmel NY пишет:
> > While it will undoubtedly work, it is still more complex than the
> > average
> > desktop user requirers.
> 
> Building from ports is already more complex thing than one could
> expect 
> from desktop user. I don't think ports are recommended way to keep 
> system updated. It you use ports, you change port options (why would
> you 
> use them if not), so you are on narrower path - non-default options
> are 
> not QA tested, can conflict with each other and within dependency
> chain, etc
> > Synth fits the bill nicely by being, for the most
> > part, easy to understand and run. I am already on my forth "ports
> > maintenance"
> > program having used portmanager, portmaster, portupgrade and now
> > synth. At
> > this point, I would almost rather switch to a new OS before
> > abandoning synth
> > for something that IMHO is just overkill for the average user.
> 
> You know, this is open source, right? You may  pick up ADA stack,
> I'm 
> sure J Marino will give you some ideas how to overcome ino64 issue.
> 

Here is Marino's post on the FreeBSD forum about ino64 issue:
https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/62633/

___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Matt Smith]

On Oct 02 11:51, Don Lewis wrote:


Yes, but at least the poudriere jail doesn't build the kernel bits.  The
real pain point is that when you update the jail, the next bulk package
build will toss all the previously built packages and force a full
rebuild from scratch.  That makes sense if you believe that the contents
of the jail affect the contents of the packages build using that jail.
If you don't think that is true, then why bother to update the jail.


That is a good point and it does seem an overkill if you think not much 
has changed in the jail to warrant it. It doesn't do it every time, only 
when they increment the osrel number.


There is a way around it. I sometimes run this script which updates the 
jail to be the same as my host.


#/bin/sh

V1=`uname -r`
V2=`sysctl -n kern.osreldate`
JV=`find /var/poudriere/data/packages/ -depth 2 -name .jailversion`

echo "${V1} ${V2}" > ${JV}
echo "${JV} set to ${V1} ${V2}"


--
Matt
___
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-Announce] New 2017Q4 branch

[René Ladan]

Hi,

The 2017Q4 branch has been created. It means that the next update on the
quarterly packages will be on the 2017Q4 branch.

A lot of things happened in the last three months:
- pkg 1.10.1
- New USES: (none)
- Removed USES: execinfo twisted
- New keywords: (none)
- Removed keywords: (none)
- Default version of GCC switched to 6
- Firefox 56.0
- Firefox-esr 52.4.0
- Chromium 61.0.3163.100
- Ruby 2.2.8, 2.3.5, 2.4.1
- gcc 6.4.0
- ghc 8.0.2
- devel/cmake-modules merged into devel/cmake
- devel/cargo merged into lang/rust, as Cargo is now provided with Rust

Next quarterly package builds will start on Tuesday October 3th, at 1:00
PM and
should be available on your closest mirrors few days later.

For those stat nerds out there, here's what happened during the last 3
months on head:
Number of commits: 5876
Number of committers: 175
Most active committers:
1542  sunpoet
 261  amdmi3
 215  jbeich
 180  swills
 153  olgeni
 148  dbaio
 144  ultima
 126  antoine
 120  jrm
 104  mat
Diffstat: 16612 files changed, 245701 insertions(+), 152531 deletions(-)

and on the 2017Q3 branch:
Number of commits: 345
Number of committers: 54
Most active committers:
  59  feld
  51  jbeich
  40  tz
  18  sunpoet
  17  cpm
  13  koobs
  11  riggs
   8  ultima
   8  junovitch
   8  joneum
Diffstat: 955 files changed, 13462 insertions(+), 16764 deletions(-)

Regards,
René Ladan



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[David Wolfskill]

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:51:33AM -0700, Don Lewis wrote:
> On  2 Oct, Marco Beishuizen wrote:
> ...
> > I'm running 11.1-STABLE now, upgrading every few months or when there is 
> > an important security fix. Do I have to build a new system twice in that 
> > case (once my running system and once the poudriere jail)?
> 
> Yes, but at least the poudriere jail doesn't build the kernel bits.  The
> real pain point is that when you update the jail, the next bulk package
> build will toss all the previously built packages and force a full
> rebuild from scratch.  That makes sense if you believe that the contents
> of the jail affect the contents of the packages build using that jail.
> If you don't think that is true, then why bother to update the jail.
> 
> I stick to pretty much the same schedule as you for updating my -STABLE
> machines, though I'm doing it for 10.4-STABLE i386, 11.1-STABLE amd64
> and i386, and 12.0-CURRENT amd64.  I try to do weekly package update
> runs.
> 

With respect, that (building the world twice -- once for the host and
once for the poudriere jail) has not been my experience.

As described in 
and 
(particularly the "Postscript: Subsequent Maintenance" section at the
bottom of the latter page), the machine that runs poudriere gets its
stable/11 environment updated daily; it runs poudriere twice each week
(Saturday and Sunday), and the thus-refreshed local repository is used
weekly (on Sunday).

As a case in point, on Saturday last (2 days ago, as of this writing),
the host system was updated from:

FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE #469  r324085M/324100:1101505: Fri Sep 29 03:39:21 PDT 2017 
r...@freebeast.catwhisker.org:/common/S1/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  amd64

to 

FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE #470  r324115M/324116:1101505: Sat Sep 30 03:41:57 PDT 2017 
r...@freebeast.catwhisker.org:/common/S1/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  amd64

the ports working copy was updated from r450887 to r450972, and the
ensuing poudriere run recorded:

[11amd64-ports-home] [2017-09-30_10h55m37s] [committing:] Queued: 1091 Built: 
1091 Failed: 0Skipped: 0Ignored: 0Tobuild: 0 Time: 04:28:37


The following day, the host system was updated from:

FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE #470  r324115M/324116:1101505: Sat Sep 30 03:41:57 PDT 2017 
r...@freebeast.catwhisker.org:/common/S1/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  amd64

to

FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE #471  r324138M/324155:1101505: Sun Oct  1 03:42:38 PDT 2017 
r...@freebeast.catwhisker.org:/common/S1/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  amd64

the ports working copy was updated from r450972 to r451042, and the
ensuing poudriere run recorded:

[11amd64-ports-home] [2017-10-01_10h50m40s] [committing:] Queued: 183 Built: 
183 Failed: 0   Skipped: 0   Ignored: 0   Tobuild: 0Time: 01:42:10


Disclaimer: I do not claim expertise in ports-system wrangling.
While I use poudriere to build packages for my systems that are
only updated weekly, I use portmaster for those that are updated
daily.  I make no claims of optimal ... anything, really.  What I
describe seems to generally work for me, but my approaches are
almost certainly not suitable for most folks.  Despite that, it may
be possible to learn things from what others have done, so I have
tried to document what I did; please feel free to use it -- possibly
as an example of what NOT to do. :-)

Peace,
david
-- 
David H. Wolfskill  da...@catwhisker.org
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/donald-trump-playbook-1.4265374

See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

New 2017Q4 branch

[René Ladan]

Hi,

The 2017Q4 branch has been created. It means that the next update on the
quarterly packages will be on the 2017Q4 branch.

A lot of things happened in the last three months:
- pkg 1.10.1
- New USES: (none)
- Removed USES: execinfo twisted
- New keywords: (none)
- Removed keywords: (none)
- Default version of GCC switched to 6
- Firefox 56.0
- Firefox-esr 52.4.0
- Chromium 61.0.3163.100
- Ruby 2.2.8, 2.3.5, 2.4.1
- gcc 6.4.0
- ghc 8.0.2
- devel/cmake-modules merged into devel/cmake
- devel/cargo merged into lang/rust, as Cargo is now provided with Rust

Next quarterly package builds will start on Tuesday October 3th, at 1:00
PM and
should be available on your closest mirrors few days later.

For those stat nerds out there, here's what happened during the last 3
months on head:
Number of commits: 5876
Number of committers: 175
Most active committers:
1542  sunpoet
 261  amdmi3
 215  jbeich
 180  swills
 153  olgeni
 148  dbaio
 144  ultima
 126  antoine
 120  jrm
 104  mat
Diffstat: 16612 files changed, 245701 insertions(+), 152531 deletions(-)

and on the 2017Q3 branch:
Number of commits: 345
Number of committers: 54
Most active committers:
  59  feld
  51  jbeich
  40  tz
  18  sunpoet
  17  cpm
  13  koobs
  11  riggs
   8  ultima
   8  junovitch
   8  joneum
Diffstat: 955 files changed, 13462 insertions(+), 16764 deletions(-)

Regards,
René Ladan



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Marco Beishuizen]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, the wise Matt Smith wrote:

I'm running 11.1-STABLE now, upgrading every few months or when there 
is an important security fix. Do I have to build a new system twice in 
that case (once my running system and once the poudriere jail)?




What I do is to initially create the jail using poudriere jail -c -j 11 
-m src=/usr/src and then I upgrade the jail using poudriere jail -u -j 
11.


These commands use the existing /usr/src and /usr/obj trees from the 
host system buildworld/kernel. It doesn't need to be rebuilt.


Did a make cleanworld last time I upgraded so /usr/obj is empty now, but 
next time I'll try this out. Didn't know poudriere could do this (although 
it's in the manpage I see now). Thanks for the info!


Regards,
Marco
--
This sentence no verb.
___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Don Lewis]

On  2 Oct, Marco Beishuizen wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, the wise Don Lewis wrote:
> 
>> Yes it can.  If you use the svn method when creating a jail you can 
>> chose any arbitrary source branch from the svn repository and then you 
>> can specify any desired svn revision on that branch when you update the 
>> jail.  You would probably want to use this method when building ports 
>> for 12.0-CURRENT rather than creating the jail using a 12.0-CURRENT 
>> snapshot.
> 
> I'm running 11.1-STABLE now, upgrading every few months or when there is 
> an important security fix. Do I have to build a new system twice in that 
> case (once my running system and once the poudriere jail)?

Yes, but at least the poudriere jail doesn't build the kernel bits.  The
real pain point is that when you update the jail, the next bulk package
build will toss all the previously built packages and force a full
rebuild from scratch.  That makes sense if you believe that the contents
of the jail affect the contents of the packages build using that jail.
If you don't think that is true, then why bother to update the jail.

I stick to pretty much the same schedule as you for updating my -STABLE
machines, though I'm doing it for 10.4-STABLE i386, 11.1-STABLE amd64
and i386, and 12.0-CURRENT amd64.  I try to do weekly package update
runs.

___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Matt Smith]

On Oct 02 20:01, Marco Beishuizen wrote:

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, the wise Don Lewis wrote:

Yes it can.  If you use the svn method when creating a jail you can 
chose any arbitrary source branch from the svn repository and then 
you can specify any desired svn revision on that branch when you 
update the jail.  You would probably want to use this method when 
building ports for 12.0-CURRENT rather than creating the jail using 
a 12.0-CURRENT snapshot.


I'm running 11.1-STABLE now, upgrading every few months or when there 
is an important security fix. Do I have to build a new system twice in 
that case (once my running system and once the poudriere jail)?




What I do is to initially create the jail using poudriere jail -c -j 11 
-m src=/usr/src and then I upgrade the jail using poudriere jail -u -j 
11.


These commands use the existing /usr/src and /usr/obj trees from the 
host system buildworld/kernel. It doesn't need to be rebuilt.


--
Matt
___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Marco Beishuizen]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, the wise Don Lewis wrote:

Yes it can.  If you use the svn method when creating a jail you can 
chose any arbitrary source branch from the svn repository and then you 
can specify any desired svn revision on that branch when you update the 
jail.  You would probably want to use this method when building ports 
for 12.0-CURRENT rather than creating the jail using a 12.0-CURRENT 
snapshot.


I'm running 11.1-STABLE now, upgrading every few months or when there is 
an important security fix. Do I have to build a new system twice in that 
case (once my running system and once the poudriere jail)?


--
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made
of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts
is not necessarily science.
-- Jules Henri Poincar'e
___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Chris H]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 09:44:26 -0700 "Chris H"  wrote

> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:28:49 +0100 Matt Smith  wrote
> 
> > On Oct 02 09:07, Carmel NY wrote:
> > >On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 23:49:14 +0100, Matthew Seaman stated:
> > >
> > >>On 01/10/2017 11:34, Carmel NY wrote:
> > >>> 1. Does it determine out-of-date update packages automatically or does
> > >>> the user have to determine that what is out-of-date and feed them to
> > >>> poudriere manually and in the proper order?
> > >>
> > >>Automatic.
> > >>
> > >>> 2. From what I have read, the user is required to install each package
> > >>> manually. Is that correct?
> > >>
> > >>Poudriere builds a repository.  You then have to type 'pkg upgrade' or
> > >>'pkg install foo' to update your live system.  Most people do not find
> > >>this particularly taxing.
> > >
> > >From the "pkg-descr" file:
> > >
> > >poudriere is a tool primarily designed to test package production on
> > >FreeBSD. However, most people will find it useful to bulk build ports
> > >for FreeBSD.
> > >
> > >While it will undoubtedly work, it is still more complex than the average
> > >desktop user requirers. Synth fits the bill nicely by being, for the most
> > >part, easy to understand and run. I am already on my forth "ports
> > >maintenance" program having used portmanager, portmaster, portupgrade and
> > >now synth. At this point, I would almost rather switch to a new OS before
> > >abandoning synth for something that IMHO is just overkill for the average
> > >user. 
> > >Just my 2¢.
> > >
> > 
> > Of course if you did move to a different OS then the chances are you 
> > would be using a binary package repository and not compiling any 
> > software from source. So you wouldn't have any choice over the options 
> > that these packages were built with.
> > 
> > If you are happy enough to do this then you may as well just abandon 
> > building ports on FreeBSD anyway and just use the pkg tool from the 
> > official FreeBSD repository. This is the easiest option surely.
> > 
> > For what it's worth I've used both synth and poudriere and whilst 
> > poudriere is slightly heavier to use because of the requirement to 
> > create a build jail first, once that step has been done it's pretty much 
> > identical to using synth really.
> > 
> > My workflow is simply this:
> > 
> > poudriere ports -u (update the ports tree)
> > poudriere bulk -j 11 -f pkglist (check for any updates and build any 
> > packages listed in the pkglist file)
> > pkg upgrade (upgrade any upgraded packages)
> > 
> > That's it. The same workflow on synth is:
> > svn up /usr/ports
> > synth build pkglist
> > pkg upgrade
> > 
> > Pretty similar if you ask me. OK you could use synth upgrade-system and 
> > do it in one command rather than two but then you're building everything 
> > on the host system and not a specific list. Also I like the extra pkg 
> > stage, it gives me a chance to see what pkg is about to do and abort it 
> > if it wants to do something insane.
> I think you really made the point here, Matt;
> IMHO It's really a Chocolate vs Vanilla, Broccoli vs Corn situation.
> Both are fine; but not everyone is willing to have/choose either, and
Ahem, s/either/both/g
the above line should have read both, not either.
sorry. :(
> someone(TM) is going to have to step up, and ensure that *both* are
> available, before both parties are going to be satisfied/happy. :)
> 
> Just the way I see it (my .02¢)
> 
> So. Has John paid the necessary penance yet? ;) ;)
> 
> --Chris
> > 
> > -- 
> > Matt
> > ___
> > 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@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@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: gettng the port revision number associated with the pkg repo. [Please?)

[Julian Elischer]

On 3/10/17 12:25 am, Simon Wright wrote:

On 02/10/2017 22:19, Julian Elischer wrote:

On 28/9/17 9:25 pm, Lowell Gilbert wrote:

Julian Elischer  writes:


On 26/9/17 10:07 pm, Lowell Gilbert wrote:

Julian Elischer  writes:

SO imagine that I needed to be ab;e to reproduce the pkg repo 
as of a
articular day, is there anywhere one can look to see the svn 
revision

number that corresponds to teh current pkg files.


I would like to take a snapshot at a particular revision.. but 
how do

I find out what the revision was when the build was kicked off?
If you want to do that after the fact, I'm not sure how you'd 
specify
when you want the information for. But if you do it when you 
kick off

the build (or if you haven't changed the tree since), svnversion(1)
will tell you.


I mean for the official pkg repo..

is there a file somewhere that says "these packages are as of 
r443234"?

Sorry that I misunderstood your intent.

I am fairly sure that what you want exists somewhere, but I can't 
find

it at the moment.


Unfortunately neither can I.


Hi Julian, Lowell

I need this information so that I can start my poudriere builds with 
my quite small list of ports with non-standard options from the same 
revision as the pkg system. I use a somewhat modified version of 
this script:


https://gist.github.com/reedacartwright/8622973baf89b263a6d7

Thanks to Reed for creating and maintaining this.

can we just find out who runs the poudriere instances and ask them to 
just append the svn revision number somewhere? or maybe even the 
poudriere commands  used..


*somewhere*?


___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Don Lewis]

On  2 Oct, Marco Beishuizen wrote:

> I'm also not sure if poudriere 
> is able to track ports on a STABLE system (as in my case).

Yes it can.  If you use the svn method when creating a jail you can
chose any arbitrary source branch from the svn repository and then you
can specify any desired svn revision on that branch when you update the
jail.   You would probably want to use this method when building ports
for 12.0-CURRENT rather than creating the jail using a 12.0-CURRENT
snapshot.

___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Chris H]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:28:49 +0100 Matt Smith  wrote

> On Oct 02 09:07, Carmel NY wrote:
> >On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 23:49:14 +0100, Matthew Seaman stated:
> >
> >>On 01/10/2017 11:34, Carmel NY wrote:
> >>> 1. Does it determine out-of-date update packages automatically or does
> >>> the user have to determine that what is out-of-date and feed them to
> >>> poudriere manually and in the proper order?
> >>
> >>Automatic.
> >>
> >>> 2. From what I have read, the user is required to install each package
> >>> manually. Is that correct?
> >>
> >>Poudriere builds a repository.  You then have to type 'pkg upgrade' or
> >>'pkg install foo' to update your live system.  Most people do not find
> >>this particularly taxing.
> >
> >From the "pkg-descr" file:
> >
> >poudriere is a tool primarily designed to test package production on
> >FreeBSD. However, most people will find it useful to bulk build ports
> >for FreeBSD.
> >
> >While it will undoubtedly work, it is still more complex than the average
> >desktop user requirers. Synth fits the bill nicely by being, for the most
> >part, easy to understand and run. I am already on my forth "ports
> >maintenance" program having used portmanager, portmaster, portupgrade and
> >now synth. At this point, I would almost rather switch to a new OS before
> >abandoning synth for something that IMHO is just overkill for the average
> >user. 
> >Just my 2¢.
> >
> 
> Of course if you did move to a different OS then the chances are you 
> would be using a binary package repository and not compiling any 
> software from source. So you wouldn't have any choice over the options 
> that these packages were built with.
> 
> If you are happy enough to do this then you may as well just abandon 
> building ports on FreeBSD anyway and just use the pkg tool from the 
> official FreeBSD repository. This is the easiest option surely.
> 
> For what it's worth I've used both synth and poudriere and whilst 
> poudriere is slightly heavier to use because of the requirement to 
> create a build jail first, once that step has been done it's pretty much 
> identical to using synth really.
> 
> My workflow is simply this:
> 
> poudriere ports -u (update the ports tree)
> poudriere bulk -j 11 -f pkglist (check for any updates and build any 
> packages listed in the pkglist file)
> pkg upgrade (upgrade any upgraded packages)
> 
> That's it. The same workflow on synth is:
> svn up /usr/ports
> synth build pkglist
> pkg upgrade
> 
> Pretty similar if you ask me. OK you could use synth upgrade-system and 
> do it in one command rather than two but then you're building everything 
> on the host system and not a specific list. Also I like the extra pkg 
> stage, it gives me a chance to see what pkg is about to do and abort it 
> if it wants to do something insane.
I think you really made the point here, Matt;
IMHO It's really a Chocolate vs Vanilla, Broccoli vs Corn situation.
Both are fine; but not everyone is willing to have/choose either, and
someone(TM) is going to have to step up, and ensure that *both* are
available, before both parties are going to be satisfied/happy. :)

Just the way I see it (my .02¢)

So. Has John paid the necessary penance yet? ;) ;)

--Chris
> 
> -- 
> Matt
> ___
> 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@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: gettng the port revision number associated with the pkg repo.

[Simon Wright]

On 02/10/2017 22:19, Julian Elischer wrote:

On 28/9/17 9:25 pm, Lowell Gilbert wrote:

Julian Elischer  writes:


On 26/9/17 10:07 pm, Lowell Gilbert wrote:

Julian Elischer  writes:

SO imagine that I needed to be ab;e to reproduce the pkg repo 
as of a
articular day, is there anywhere one can look to see the svn 
revision

number that corresponds to teh current pkg files.


I would like to take a snapshot at a particular revision.. but 
how do

I find out what the revision was when the build was kicked off?
If you want to do that after the fact, I'm not sure how you'd 
specify
when you want the information for. But if you do it when you 
kick off

the build (or if you haven't changed the tree since), svnversion(1)
will tell you.


I mean for the official pkg repo..

is there a file somewhere that says "these packages are as of 
r443234"?

Sorry that I misunderstood your intent.

I am fairly sure that what you want exists somewhere, but I can't 
find

it at the moment.


Unfortunately neither can I.


Hi Julian, Lowell

I need this information so that I can start my poudriere builds with 
my quite small list of ports with non-standard options from the same 
revision as the pkg system. I use a somewhat modified version of 
this script:


https://gist.github.com/reedacartwright/8622973baf89b263a6d7

Thanks to Reed for creating and maintaining this.

--
Simon.
___
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: Porters Handbook section 4.4

[Russell Haley]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Warren Block  wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Russell Haley wrote:
>
>> Thanks! I'll play with this on the weekend.
>
>
> Please create a review at https://reviews.freebsd.org/ and add me as a
> reviewer.
>
> Thanks!

Will do. Just a progress update: I got the handbook sources and found
the section in chapter.xml. I created a Geany project with everyone's
raw notes and the sources. To be continued...

Russ
___
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: gettng the port revision number associated with the pkg repo.

[Julian Elischer]

On 28/9/17 9:25 pm, Lowell Gilbert wrote:

Julian Elischer  writes:


On 26/9/17 10:07 pm, Lowell Gilbert wrote:

Julian Elischer  writes:


SO imagine that I needed to be ab;e to reproduce the pkg repo as of a
articular day, is there anywhere one can look to see the svn revision
number that corresponds to teh current pkg files.


I would like to take a snapshot at a particular revision.. but how do
I find out what the revision was when the build was kicked off?

If you want to do that after the fact, I'm not sure how you'd specify
when you want the information for. But if you do it when you kick off
the build (or if you haven't changed the tree since), svnversion(1)
will tell you.


I mean for the official pkg repo..

is there a file somewhere that says "these packages are as of r443234"?

Sorry that I misunderstood your intent.

I am fairly sure that what you want exists somewhere, but I can't find
it at the moment.


Unfortunately neither can I.


___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[abi]

02.10.2017 13:05, Vlad K. пишет:

On 2017-10-02 11:57, abi wrote:

2. Dependency chain is not updated - if I disable B feature on port A,
poudriere asks me for options of ports implementing B. I have to
Ctrl+C after any option change.



I find that annoying as well, but isn't that just how the 
config-recursive ports framework target works? Poudriere is really 
using the ports make targets here.


Do synth or portmaster do it differently?




portmaster has special handling for that - after dialog4ports 
invocation, it updates dependency chain of edited port with applied 
options and proceeds with real dependencies only. The thing poudrere 
could borrow, from my point of view.


synth doesn't have tools to edit options, it reads only.

___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[abi]

02.10.2017 13:25, Matt Smith пишет:

On Oct 02 12:05, Vlad K. wrote:

On 2017-10-02 11:57, abi wrote:

2. Dependency chain is not updated - if I disable B feature on port A,
poudriere asks me for options of ports implementing B. I have to
Ctrl+C after any option change.



I find that annoying as well, but isn't that just how the 
config-recursive ports framework target works? Poudriere is really 
using the ports make targets here.


Do synth or portmaster do it differently?



Synths philosophy was that you should have the absolute bare minimum 
of options set and John wrote a script to do just this in 
/usr/ports/Tools/scripts/redundant-opt-files.sh to delete any which 
just have defaults in them.


The thing John doesn't explain why we need to purge "redundant options". 
They are not redundant, they inform user that port options are not 
changed after ports tree update. Synth softly suggests user *not* to 
change ports options, because it's hard to manage them and stay in synth 
"philosophy".



___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Vlad K.]

On 2017-10-02 12:05, Marco Beishuizen wrote:


I agree, imho poudriere is designed to maintain ports and testing
them, or if you have to build ports for lots of systems. And it works
very well for that too. But portupgrade and portmaster are imho far
better in just tracking newer versions of installed ports. I'm also
not sure if poudriere is able to track ports on a STABLE system (as in
my case).


It may've been the original design idea, but Poudriere is the de facto 
pkg building tool on FreeBSD for the official pkg repository, so its 
application is far from just testing.


Also, Poudriere is building a repository, comparing it to any other tool 
for tracking _installed_ ports is simply wrong, pkg does that. Even with 
portmaster, pkg does that as portmaster builds a pkg and registers it 
with the pkg database.


It will perfectly detect changes and upgrade newer versions of packages 
for the repos it is maintaining, and `pkg upgrade` will handle the 
tracking of installed packages.


There is also huge advantage in building a repo FIRST, then using pkg 
LATER. I've had a ton of issues upgrading ports that were in use, where 
a dependency would be upgraded first and the program in use would fail 
because its port is not yet updated for that change.


So if we want to compare apples to apples, then the difference is 
between "simple" tools that directly manage files on the system, versus 
tools that prepare a pkg repo first, and you manage the files on the 
system with pkg (some-tool build-and-installvssome-tool build && 
pkg install). It may be someone's PREFERENCE to do the former, but there 
is no objective benefit of that over preparing pkgs first, in an 
(automatically managed) isolated environment.


That said, Poudriere is perfectly capable to manage software on a single 
machine. It works out of the box with a few simple steps needed to set 
it up for that task (poudriere jail + poudriere ports).



--
Vlad K.
___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Matt Smith]

On Oct 02 12:05, Vlad K. wrote:

On 2017-10-02 11:57, abi wrote:

2. Dependency chain is not updated - if I disable B feature on port A,
poudriere asks me for options of ports implementing B. I have to
Ctrl+C after any option change.



I find that annoying as well, but isn't that just how the 
config-recursive ports framework target works? Poudriere is really 
using the ports make targets here.


Do synth or portmaster do it differently?



Synths philosophy was that you should have the absolute bare minimum of 
options set and John wrote a script to do just this in 
/usr/ports/Tools/scripts/redundant-opt-files.sh to delete any which just 
have defaults in them.


My method with poudriere is to maintain two files, pkglist which is the 
list of ports that I want to bulk build, and optlist which is the list 
of ports for which I don't want the default options. This one is a 
hugely cut down list.


I then occasionally run poudriere options -n -j jailname -f optlist so 
that it non-recursively only gives me a dialog for the ports with 
non-default options.


--
Matt
___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Marco Beishuizen]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, the wise Matthew D. Fuller wrote:

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 09:21:31PM +0200 I heard the voice of Marco 
Beishuizen, and lo! it spake thus:


Using portupgrade every day and still works great. Tried portmaster 
once but liked portupgrade more. I use poudriere just for testing 
ports.


I also use portupgrade constantly on several systems, and portmaster 
occasionally for some special cases where it has advantages.


I also use poudriere on a lot of systems.  Actually, most, nowadays. And 
I'm extremely happy with it.  But I expect the systems I'm running 
straight out of ports now will continue to do so for a very long time, 
since poudriere just won't fit at all.


I agree, imho poudriere is designed to maintain ports and testing them, or 
if you have to build ports for lots of systems. And it works very well for 
that too. But portupgrade and portmaster are imho far better in just 
tracking newer versions of installed ports. I'm also not sure if poudriere 
is able to track ports on a STABLE system (as in my case).


So I hope both tools will be available in the future.

--
Breeding rabbits is a hare raising experience.
___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Vlad K.]

On 2017-10-02 11:57, abi wrote:

2. Dependency chain is not updated - if I disable B feature on port A,
poudriere asks me for options of ports implementing B. I have to
Ctrl+C after any option change.



I find that annoying as well, but isn't that just how the 
config-recursive ports framework target works? Poudriere is really using 
the ports make targets here.


Do synth or portmaster do it differently?


--
Vlad K.
___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[abi]

02.10.2017 12:51, Vlad K. пишет:

On 2017-10-02 09:02, abi wrote:

1. When port doesn't have options cached portmaster invokes
dialog4ports (poudriere can't do it in proper way, synth doesn't do it
at all)


What do you mean it can't?



' in proper way.

Issues I encountered when switched to poudriere

1. Test deps pulled. I received very strange requests for some ports.

2. Dependency chain is not updated - if I disable B feature on port A, 
poudriere asks me for options of ports implementing B. I have to Ctrl+C 
after any option change.


___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Vlad K.]

On 2017-10-02 09:02, abi wrote:

1. When port doesn't have options cached portmaster invokes
dialog4ports (poudriere can't do it in proper way, synth doesn't do it
at all)


What do you mean it can't?

poudriere options -j jailname -p portstree -f /list/of/packages

No? And if you re-run this step after each 'ports -u' and before 'bulk', 
it will raise dialogs for ports that have options changed.




--
Vlad K.
___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[abi]

02.10.2017 12:22, Thomas Mueller пишет:


Downside of dialog4ports is burying options in a tree under /var/db/ports not 
intended for direct modification by user.


Direct modification assumes you edit it directly, I leave this job for 
dialog4ports.

I had to delete /var/db/ports/* but keep empty /var/db/ports and put the 
options in
/usr/local/etc/synth/LiveSystem-make.conf


And how you are going to support make.conf options ?
Let's say, if you need custom ffmpeg or nginx, how many lines you need 
to put in that file? Probably 2, but they will be long.
How are you going to be notified for new options ? nginx options changes 
fast and if they enabled by default, you *silently* receive them. Maybe 
changes will be incompatible with your custom build, like HTTPv2 without 
SSL.
make.conf way is a long term failure. It's not Gentoo portage with meta 
flags.

___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Matt Smith]

On Oct 02 09:07, Carmel NY wrote:

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 23:49:14 +0100, Matthew Seaman stated:


On 01/10/2017 11:34, Carmel NY wrote:

1. Does it determine out-of-date update packages automatically or does
the user have to determine that what is out-of-date and feed them to
poudriere manually and in the proper order?


Automatic.


2. From what I have read, the user is required to install each package
manually. Is that correct?


Poudriere builds a repository.  You then have to type 'pkg upgrade' or
'pkg install foo' to update your live system.  Most people do not find
this particularly taxing.


From the "pkg-descr" file:

poudriere is a tool primarily designed to test package production on
FreeBSD. However, most people will find it useful to bulk build ports
for FreeBSD.

While it will undoubtedly work, it is still more complex than the average
desktop user requirers. Synth fits the bill nicely by being, for the most
part, easy to understand and run. I am already on my forth "ports maintenance"
program having used portmanager, portmaster, portupgrade and now synth. At
this point, I would almost rather switch to a new OS before abandoning synth
for something that IMHO is just overkill for the average user.

Just my 2¢.



Of course if you did move to a different OS then the chances are you 
would be using a binary package repository and not compiling any 
software from source. So you wouldn't have any choice over the options 
that these packages were built with.


If you are happy enough to do this then you may as well just abandon 
building ports on FreeBSD anyway and just use the pkg tool from the 
official FreeBSD repository. This is the easiest option surely.


For what it's worth I've used both synth and poudriere and whilst 
poudriere is slightly heavier to use because of the requirement to 
create a build jail first, once that step has been done it's pretty much 
identical to using synth really.


My workflow is simply this:

poudriere ports -u (update the ports tree)
poudriere bulk -j 11 -f pkglist (check for any updates and build any 
packages listed in the pkglist file)

pkg upgrade (upgrade any upgraded packages)

That's it. The same workflow on synth is:
svn up /usr/ports
synth build pkglist
pkg upgrade

Pretty similar if you ask me. OK you could use synth upgrade-system and 
do it in one command rather than two but then you're building everything 
on the host system and not a specific list. Also I like the extra pkg 
stage, it gives me a chance to see what pkg is about to do and abort it 
if it wants to do something insane.


--
Matt
___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[abi]

02.10.2017 12:07, Carmel NY пишет:

While it will undoubtedly work, it is still more complex than the average
desktop user requirers.
Building from ports is already more complex thing than one could expect 
from desktop user. I don't think ports are recommended way to keep 
system updated. It you use ports, you change port options (why would you 
use them if not), so you are on narrower path - non-default options are 
not QA tested, can conflict with each other and within dependency chain, etc

Synth fits the bill nicely by being, for the most
part, easy to understand and run. I am already on my forth "ports maintenance"
program having used portmanager, portmaster, portupgrade and now synth. At
this point, I would almost rather switch to a new OS before abandoning synth
for something that IMHO is just overkill for the average user.
You know, this is open source, right? You may  pick up ADA stack, I'm 
sure J Marino will give you some ideas how to overcome ino64 issue.


___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Thomas Mueller]

from abi:

> > What sort of port options can portmaster support better than synth?
> 1. When port doesn't have options cached portmaster invokes dialog4ports
> (poudriere can't do it in proper way, synth doesn't do it at all)
> 2. When options become outdated portmaster invokes dialog4ports
> 3. portmaster gives me summary what it would like to do
> 4. portmaster shows why it wants to build port A - it gives me dependency
> chain. For example I spent 2 hours trying to figure what's going on with
> poudriere (it pulls TEST dependencies - why?)

> So, I'd say we have only 1 tool designed for end user.

Downside of dialog4ports is burying options in a tree under /var/db/ports not 
intended for direct modification by user.

I much prefer direct non-dialog editing of options, such as is done in pkgsrc 
and Gentoo portage.

I recently got into a circular-dependency mess using "make config-recursive" 
multiple times on each port.

I had to delete /var/db/ports/* but keep empty /var/db/ports and put the 
options in
/usr/local/etc/synth/LiveSystem-make.conf

But I could still be screwed when options become outdated or new options arise.

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"

Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Carmel NY]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 23:49:14 +0100, Matthew Seaman stated:

>On 01/10/2017 11:34, Carmel NY wrote:
>> 1. Does it determine out-of-date update packages automatically or does
>> the user have to determine that what is out-of-date and feed them to
>> poudriere manually and in the proper order?  
>
>Automatic.
>
>> 2. From what I have read, the user is required to install each package
>> manually. Is that correct?  
>
>Poudriere builds a repository.  You then have to type 'pkg upgrade' or
>'pkg install foo' to update your live system.  Most people do not find
>this particularly taxing.

From the "pkg-descr" file:

poudriere is a tool primarily designed to test package production on
FreeBSD. However, most people will find it useful to bulk build ports
for FreeBSD.

While it will undoubtedly work, it is still more complex than the average
desktop user requirers. Synth fits the bill nicely by being, for the most
part, easy to understand and run. I am already on my forth "ports maintenance"
program having used portmanager, portmaster, portupgrade and now synth. At
this point, I would almost rather switch to a new OS before abandoning synth
for something that IMHO is just overkill for the average user.

Just my 2¢.

-- 
Carmel
___
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: [HEADUP] FLAVORS landing.

[Philip Paeps]

On 2017-09-26 16:05:08 (+0200), Mathieu Arnold wrote:
**Do not commit FLAVORS to any ports, a hook will prevent it, that 
being said, do try it and test what can be done.**


There also seems to be a hook preventing new py3-* ports being added.

How should maintainers of Python3 ports proceed when their ports have 
new py3-* dependencies?  It's not immediately obvious to me from the 
wiki.


Thanks.

Philip

--
Philip Paeps
Senior Reality Engineer
Ministry of Information
___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[abi]

01.10.2017 01:44, Jonathan Chen пишет:

On 1 October 2017 at 11:29, abi  wrote:

30.09.2017 20:06, Kevin Oberman пишет:


As a result, I am no longer able to track HEAD and, if the issue is not
resolved in some manner before 11 support ends, will be forced to move
from
FreeBSD after an using it for over 2 decades. I certainly hope that this
is
not what happens.


Is it absolutely necessary to be so overdramatic ? synth is rather young
project and it's failure was very probable - written on long dead language
and supported by 1 person. It can't even be replacement for portmaster as
contains only preliminary support if port options.

What sort of port options can portmaster support better than synth?
1. When port doesn't have options cached portmaster invokes dialog4ports 
(poudriere can't do it in proper way, synth doesn't do it at all)

2. When options become outdated portmaster invokes dialog4ports
3. portmaster gives me summary what it would like to do
4. portmaster shows why it wants to build port A - it gives me 
dependency chain. For example I spent 2 hours trying to figure what's 
going on with poudriere (it pulls TEST dependencies - why?)


So, I'd say we have only 1 tool designed for end user.
___
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"