Guido Falsi wrote on 2020/12/29 08:49:
> This is intentional behaviour, hand there are good reasons for this.
>
> Anyway poudriere has the CHECK_CHANGED_DEPS option which can be disabled and
> should restrict this behavior. I have never tested it though, I don't think
> the risk of getting and
On 29/12/20 00:07, Tatsuki Makino wrote:
Where should I hang out to reply? :)
poudriere has weaknesses in updating packages such as libxml and glib.
When run all at once, all packages that depend on the package being updated and
all packages that depend on the package being removed will be
To add to the extremes, it is enough to be able to topologically sort in some
way.
#!/bin/tcsh
foreach origin (`pkg version -vPL= | cut -f 1 -w | xargs pkg
some-topological-sort-command-can-someone-make-this -o`)
make -C /usr/ports/${origin:q} clean
make -C /usr/ports/${origin:q} build
Where should I hang out to reply? :)
poudriere has weaknesses in updating packages such as libxml and glib.
When run all at once, all packages that depend on the package being updated and
all packages that depend on the package being removed will be removed.
The text is not clear :), but
Am 28.12.20 um 22:07 schrieb Michael Grimm:>> On 28. Dec 2020, at 21:41,
Stefan Esser wrote:
Poudriere works best on sufficiently powerful build servers and it
often requires rebuilding dependencies over hours when I just want to
test a new port before committing it.
Excuse me, but that is
Hi
> On 28. Dec 2020, at 21:41, Stefan Esser wrote:
>
> Poudriere works best on sufficiently powerful build servers and it
> often requires rebuilding dependencies over hours when I just want to
> test a new port before committing it.
Excuse me, but that is not true in this generality. I do
Am 28.12.20 um 15:04 schrieb abi via freebsd-ports:
On 28.12.2020 16:16, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 28.12.20 um 11:11 schrieb abi via freebsd-ports:> I build my ports
in poudriere in VM without zfs or ssd on pre-Sandy
Bridge CPU. I don't have enough memory or disk space, so I don't use
tmpfs or
On 12/27/20 4:00 AM, LuMiWa via freebsd-ports wrote:
> The subject is 'portmaster new development' but again start pushing
> poudriere to FreeBSD users. I do not use zfs file system and I do not
> use poudriere and I do not want to use on my computer for building some
> ports and t
On 2020-12-28 05:16, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 28.12.20 um 11:11 schrieb abi via freebsd-ports:> I build my ports in
poudriere
in VM without zfs or ssd on pre-Sandy
Bridge CPU. I don't have enough memory or disk space, so I don't use tmpfs
or ccache either. I migrated from portmaster when it was
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 6:04 AM abi via freebsd-ports <
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 28.12.2020 16:16, Stefan Esser wrote:
> > Am 28.12.20 um 11:11 schrieb abi via freebsd-ports:> I build my ports
> > in poudriere in VM without zfs or ssd on pre-Sandy
> >> Bridge CPU. I don't have
On 28.12.2020 16:16, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 28.12.20 um 11:11 schrieb abi via freebsd-ports:> I build my ports
in poudriere in VM without zfs or ssd on pre-Sandy
Bridge CPU. I don't have enough memory or disk space, so I don't use
tmpfs or ccache either. I migrated from portmaster when it was
Am 28.12.20 um 11:11 schrieb abi via freebsd-ports:> I build my ports in
poudriere in VM without zfs or ssd on pre-Sandy
Bridge CPU. I don't have enough memory or disk space, so I don't use
tmpfs or ccache either. I migrated from portmaster when it was abandoned
several years ago and don't
On 28.12.2020 12:44, David Gessel wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Re: portmaster new development
From: LuMiWa via freebsd-ports
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Date: 2020-12-27 02:00+0300
On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 11:16:23 +0100
Michael Grimm wrote:
Matthias Apitz wrote:
El
Original Message
Subject: Re: portmaster new development
From: LuMiWa via freebsd-ports
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Date: 2020-12-27 02:00+0300
On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 11:16:23 +0100
Michael Grimm wrote:
Matthias Apitz wrote:
El día domingo, diciembre 27, 2020 a las 09
On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 07:23:59PM -0800, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> ... An improved portmaster arouses my interest. Maybe modify the name so it
> can be added to the ports tree and coexist with the "official" portmaster.
> Desired features/options would be to keep going rather than stop when one
n of portsnap and portmaster reminds me of Java and
Javascript, or potato and sweet potato (not closely related).
Yes, portsnap and portmaster do not share anything beyond the first 4
letters of their names ...
Since my question is about a new portmaster, I rename the subject to "portmaster&qu
driere jail (I have some of
> > them) and the ports options stay there, as well the make.conf
> > options in /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/freebsd-head-make.conf
>
>
> I am following stable, and my jail's name has been set to stable.
>
> All of poudriere's settings/configs
Matthias Apitz wrote:
> El día domingo, diciembre 27, 2020 a las 09:22:42a. m. +0100, Kurt Jaeger
> escribió:
>> That works as well. I have a checkout of the ports tree, use
>> make config to define non-default port options. This stores the
>> selected OPTIONs in /var/db/ports/, and poudriere
El día domingo, diciembre 27, 2020 a las 09:22:42a. m. +0100, Kurt Jaeger
escribió:
> Hi!
>
> > How is poudriere in that regard? I never used poudriere, have been
> > intimidated by not wanting to use zfs or dialog4ports, or such an elaborate
> > setup just to update one or a few ports.
>
>
On 27 Dec, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> How is poudriere in that regard? I never used poudriere, have been
>> intimidated by not wanting to use zfs or dialog4ports, or such an
>> elaborate setup just to update one or a few ports.
>
> poudriere is really, really useful. Because it delivers a
Hi!
> How is poudriere in that regard? I never used poudriere, have been
> intimidated by not wanting to use zfs or dialog4ports, or such an elaborate
> setup just to update one or a few ports.
poudriere is really, really useful. Because it delivers a complete,
consistent package repo of all
about the relation of portsnap and portmaster reminds me of Java and
Javascript, or potato and sweet potato (not closely related).
Since my question is about a new portmaster, I rename the subject to
"portmaster" or "portmaster new development", rather than hijack the &qu
22 matches
Mail list logo
