Re: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
06.08.2020 6:02, Tatsuki Makino wrote : > Is there any command other than "rm -rf /usr/ports ; portsnap extract" > that can be easily repaired? svnlite revert -R /usr/ports ___ 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: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
Is there any command other than "rm -rf /usr/ports ; portsnap extract" that can be easily repaired? ___ 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: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
from Hans Petter Selasky: > Maybe some silly questions already answered: > 1) portsnap is populating /usr/ports . Is this location still hardcoded > for ports tree installations, or can it be installed anywhere? > 2) Should portsnap be a wrapper for GIT/SVN whatever is used? > 3) Should /usr/ports be removed from any mtree files? > HPS Ports tree location is not hardcoded to /usr/ports. Because of multiple FreeBSD installations and wanting to install the ports tree redundantly, I have one /usr/ports and, from the other FreeBSD installations, use BETA1 as a mount point, so I get /BETA1/usr/ports. There was a bug beginning somewhere around FreeBSD 11.1 or 11.2, whereby running make (such as "make all-depends-list"), would be very messy if ports directory was not /usr/ports. I was able to create a workaround by setting MAKESYSPATH=/usr/share/mk (environment variable). Another workaround was to set ports directory to /usr/ports using a null mount. 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: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 20:43, Steve Wills wrote: > > > We are planning to deprecate use of portsnap in ports. > > The reasons are as follows (in no particular order): > > * Portsnap doesn't support quarterly branches, even years after quarterly > branches were created and changed to the default for non-HEAD packages. > > * Portsnap doesn't seem to save disk space compared to svn or git, if you > count the metadata (stored in /var/db/portsnap by default) and you do an > apples-to-apples comparison of svn or git without history and ignoring > possible ZFS compression. That is, you use "svn export" or git "clone --depth > 1", you see this disk usage: > >342Msvnexport >426Mgit >477Mportsnap > > * Portsnap also doesn't work offline which git does. With git, you can also > easily add the history by running "git pull --unshallow" > > * This migration away from portsnap fits well with the planned migration to > git. > > * Also based on the patches we've seen in Bugzilla for some time, usage of > portsnap causes folks to too easily accidentally submit patches to Bugzilla > which don't apply easily. > > * Since portsnap doesn't support quarterly branches, it often causes users to > build on the wrong branch or end up with mismatched packages. That is, they > install packages from quarterly via pkg, then want to customize so run > portsnap and build from head, which can cause problems, as we often see. Even > when this doesn't happen, it adds to troubleshooting to verify that it didn't. > > We are aware people have gotten used to portsnap, but believe: > > * People should be able to easily use svnlite in base or git from pkgs. (Very > few people seem to actually use WITHOUT_SVNLITE). > > * There is also the possibility of falling back to fetching a tar or zip from > https://cgit-beta.freebsd.org/ports/ although this does make updating harder. > > How it will be done, in order: > > * Update poudriere to use svn by default. This is already done: > > https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/pull/764 > https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/commit/bd68f30654e2a8e965fbdc09aad238c8bf5cdc10 > > * Update docs not to mention portsnap. This is already in progress: > > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25800 > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25801 > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25803 > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25805 > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25808 > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/363798 > > Many thanks to the folks who have worked and are working on this! > > * Make WITHOUT_PORTSNAP default in base. Currently not certain when this will > happen. May not happen before 13.0, but hopefully it will. > > * Eventually, portsnap servers will see low enough usage they can be disabled. > > We welcome any constructive feedback. All input would be heard, and if the > plans need to be amended, we will come back to you with the amended plan in a > couple of weeks. This process will take some time and hopefully won't be too > disruptive to anyone's usual workflow. What will be the process to bootstrap git? Thanks > > Steve (with portmgr@ hat) > ___ > 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: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
Hi, On 8/5/20 12:31 PM, Ernie Luzar wrote: I seems this is a done deal as changes are already being done now. So the real question is, when is the portsnap utility going to be removed from the base system? Will it happen in 12.2 or 13.0? Full removal may not happen before 13.0 but hopefully disabling it by default, so that it is not installed unless one explicitly enables it, will happen before 13.0. I maintain ports that use the portsnap utility. One is currently going through a maintenance cycle right now. Should the use of portsnap be removed from the port now? Not necessarily, as 11.x and 12.x will have it of course, but it should definitely handle portsnap not being present on the system in any case, since it can be disabled via WITHOUT_PORTSNAP (even on 11.x and 12.x). Steve ___ 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: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
Steve Wills wrote: We are planning to deprecate use of portsnap in ports. The reasons are as follows (in no particular order): * Portsnap doesn't support quarterly branches, even years after quarterly branches were created and changed to the default for non-HEAD packages. * Portsnap doesn't seem to save disk space compared to svn or git, if you count the metadata (stored in /var/db/portsnap by default) and you do an apples-to-apples comparison of svn or git without history and ignoring possible ZFS compression. That is, you use "svn export" or git "clone --depth 1", you see this disk usage: 342Msvnexport 426Mgit 477Mportsnap * Portsnap also doesn't work offline which git does. With git, you can also easily add the history by running "git pull --unshallow" * This migration away from portsnap fits well with the planned migration to git. * Also based on the patches we've seen in Bugzilla for some time, usage of portsnap causes folks to too easily accidentally submit patches to Bugzilla which don't apply easily. * Since portsnap doesn't support quarterly branches, it often causes users to build on the wrong branch or end up with mismatched packages. That is, they install packages from quarterly via pkg, then want to customize so run portsnap and build from head, which can cause problems, as we often see. Even when this doesn't happen, it adds to troubleshooting to verify that it didn't. We are aware people have gotten used to portsnap, but believe: * People should be able to easily use svnlite in base or git from pkgs. (Very few people seem to actually use WITHOUT_SVNLITE). * There is also the possibility of falling back to fetching a tar or zip from https://cgit-beta.freebsd.org/ports/ although this does make updating harder. How it will be done, in order: * Update poudriere to use svn by default. This is already done: https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/pull/764 https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/commit/bd68f30654e2a8e965fbdc09aad238c8bf5cdc10 * Update docs not to mention portsnap. This is already in progress: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25800 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25801 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25803 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25805 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25808 https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/363798 Many thanks to the folks who have worked and are working on this! * Make WITHOUT_PORTSNAP default in base. Currently not certain when this will happen. May not happen before 13.0, but hopefully it will. * Eventually, portsnap servers will see low enough usage they can be disabled. We welcome any constructive feedback. All input would be heard, and if the plans need to be amended, we will come back to you with the amended plan in a couple of weeks. This process will take some time and hopefully won't be too disruptive to anyone's usual workflow. Steve (with portmgr@ hat) I seems this is a done deal as changes are already being done now. So the real question is, when is the portsnap utility going to be removed from the base system? Will it happen in 12.2 or 13.0? I maintain ports that use the portsnap utility. One is currently going through a maintenance cycle right now. Should the use of portsnap be removed from the port now? ___ 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"
Git migration - was Re: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
Hi, On 8/5/20 5:42 AM, Yasuhiro KIMURA wrote: From: Kurt Jaeger Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 06:40:39 +0200 There's a list where the git topic is discussed: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-git/ Have a look at the archive, and yes, subversion as version control system for the FreeBSD project will probably be replaced by git. It's a bit hard for me to read entire archive;-). So is there summary of git migration project (about purpose, plan, current status, etc)? Can we please keep the discussion about git in a different thread, I'm trying to monitor the portsnap related thread for issues related to that. Thanks, Steve ___ 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: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 12:40:26PM +0100, Bob Eager wrote: > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:32:10 +0200 > Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 12:59:18PM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > > On 2020-08-04 20:43, Steve Wills wrote: > > > > > > > > We are planning to deprecate use of portsnap in ports. > > > > > > > > The reasons are as follows (in no particular order): > > > > > > > > * Portsnap doesn't support quarterly branches, even years after > > > > quarterly branches were created and changed to the default for > > > > non-HEAD packages. > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Maybe some silly questions already answered: > > > > > > 1) portsnap is populating /usr/ports . Is this location still > > > hardcoded for ports tree installations, or can it be installed > > > anywhere? > > > > > > 3) Should /usr/ports be removed from any mtree files? > > > > The default location for the ports tree is taken from the PORTSDIR > > environment variable, and it defaults to /usr/ports. > > > > Is that true for installation __of the tree__, as asked? If so, how is > it set? Well, portsnap has a default value hardcoded, otherwise, the value is taken from /usr/share/mk, like most default values. -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:32:10 +0200 Mathieu Arnold wrote: > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 12:59:18PM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > On 2020-08-04 20:43, Steve Wills wrote: > > > > > > We are planning to deprecate use of portsnap in ports. > > > > > > The reasons are as follows (in no particular order): > > > > > > * Portsnap doesn't support quarterly branches, even years after > > > quarterly branches were created and changed to the default for > > > non-HEAD packages. > > > > Hi, > > > > Maybe some silly questions already answered: > > > > 1) portsnap is populating /usr/ports . Is this location still > > hardcoded for ports tree installations, or can it be installed > > anywhere? > > > > 3) Should /usr/ports be removed from any mtree files? > > The default location for the ports tree is taken from the PORTSDIR > environment variable, and it defaults to /usr/ports. > Is that true for installation __of the tree__, as asked? If so, how is it set? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEVgdI2KeVldPAhUYaKBdf2az8e6gFAl8qmqoACgkQKBdf2az8 e6g0pQf+L9aDM8tPzxdYS43IHGbC9LmL4qrQayzXZCheZHTw7yUgZjwppE24u49f smKVsNSYjvAtP7ZOow8tIascxis2+bNO29MSj2Id7jlIxsR4SeLQTgExf6fxqepi y2kllhfc5lv4RqUScnDE02vWbgwc0CVCSO4kHl7rJp3FB3ebbb9vC2HmSeBEtYcF Vv1GJWZz08AbHwgeBOk4XCiMy+rCGd+Ewmv6PriQftiX/UG1ogvcz1XRLASFAW5T 1b2Qak6habvM7iskBXcUbzZrDCHoJelDQtLOCuZQx3OBWRwq1U7j43E7KwTzxU3e thPsGv/6WLRp9179bkziBLoKx0uPYg== =B+nJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 12:59:18PM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On 2020-08-04 20:43, Steve Wills wrote: > > > > We are planning to deprecate use of portsnap in ports. > > > > The reasons are as follows (in no particular order): > > > > * Portsnap doesn't support quarterly branches, even years after > > quarterly branches were created and changed to the default for non-HEAD > > packages. > > Hi, > > Maybe some silly questions already answered: > > 1) portsnap is populating /usr/ports . Is this location still hardcoded for > ports tree installations, or can it be installed anywhere? > > 3) Should /usr/ports be removed from any mtree files? The default location for the ports tree is taken from the PORTSDIR environment variable, and it defaults to /usr/ports. -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
On 2020-08-04 20:43, Steve Wills wrote: We are planning to deprecate use of portsnap in ports. The reasons are as follows (in no particular order): * Portsnap doesn't support quarterly branches, even years after quarterly branches were created and changed to the default for non-HEAD packages. Hi, Maybe some silly questions already answered: 1) portsnap is populating /usr/ports . Is this location still hardcoded for ports tree installations, or can it be installed anywhere? 2) Should portsnap be a wrapper for GIT/SVN whatever is used? 3) Should /usr/ports be removed from any mtree files? --HPS ___ 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: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
From: Kurt Jaeger Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 06:40:39 +0200 > There's a list where the git topic is discussed: > > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-git/ > > Have a look at the archive, and yes, subversion as version control > system for the FreeBSD project will probably be replaced by git. It's a bit hard for me to read entire archive;-). So is there summary of git migration project (about purpose, plan, current status, etc)? --- Yasuhiro KIMURA ___ 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: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:51:23PM -0700, Chris wrote: > This is very bad news for us. I can make so many arguments against > dropping subversion. It's really not (needn't be) a matter of either/or. In this sentence, who is "us"? Also, can you elaborate? -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: PGP signature
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 +-+ net/openvswitch | 2.12.0 | 2.13.1 +-+ science/afni| 20.2.08 | afni_20.2.10 +-+ sysutils/google-compute-engine-oslogin | 20191018.00 | 20200805.01 +-+ 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 Reported by:portscout! ___ 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: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap
On Tue, 04 Aug 2020 19:03:08 -0700 Chris wrote: > Please tell me that this doesn't mean a > > [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of subversion > > is on the horizon. I'm afraid that git is fashionable now. ___ 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"
