On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:32:55 -0800 (PST)
Tim Clewlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also I have the following options on in /etc/make.conf.
CFLAGS= -O -pipe# Optimize general builds
COPTFLAGS= -O -pipe # Optimize kernel builds
I would suggest you remove these since they are
On 13/12/2007, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wonder if you asked the general population, whether they'd rather
have ports or packages, I bet most would vote for packages, aside from
those that actually like watching the compilation output fly by.
I do like to watch it but in addition I
--- Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 13/12/2007, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wonder if you asked the general population, whether they'd rather
have ports or packages, I bet most would vote for packages, aside from
those that actually like watching the compilation output fly by.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Linimon wrote:
Side note the more we discuss this the more obvious it becomes to me
it has to be in some OO lang and since C++ is the only one in the base
system it kind of forces C++ to be the implementation lang.
You may want to take a
On Saturday 15 December 2007 13:28:40 Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
you do not maintain any ports
Incorrect I have one that is currently officially pending in the
backlog created by the freeze (the PR is sitting their waiting).
Also as soon that port is done and any errors I may of made as it
On Saturday 15 December 2007 01:25:11 pm David Southwell wrote:
My intention is not to offend but to draw attention to the need to remain on
topic and not to argue ad personam.
On Sunday 16 December 2007 03:33:55 am David Southwell wrote:
Good of you to post the information however
On Friday 14 December 2007 18:44:09 Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On December 14, 2007 5:21:02 PM -0800 Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Information does indeed need to be gathered, and while even the ports
list will only grab a small percentage of FreeBSD users, other options
would likely grab a lot
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:34:06PM -0500, Yoshihiro Ota wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:58:57 +0100
Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One shortcoming is the lack of locking making parallell builds a bit unsafe.
If you try to build both port A and port B at the same time, and both A and
mailing list) is our world as much as it is your world.
Think about collegial coexistence or use the delete key. Otherwise please
stay on topic and stop trolling. This thread is about the limitations of
ports system not Why we should not talk about trhe limitations of the Ports
System.
1. Stay
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Your correct that there are 2 seperate issues at play here but there
is a common solution (and to be honest I have yet to see any
feature/issue discussed in any of the re-engineering threads that
doesn't at least become more manageable under this general design
concept I
On Saturday 15 December 2007 08:04:31 Frank J. Laszlo wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Your correct that there are 2 seperate issues at play here but there
is a common solution (and to be honest I have yet to see any
feature/issue discussed in any of the re-engineering threads that
doesn't
David Southwell wrote:
And get this
I have been around the computer world using *nix long before freebsd came
along. That does not mean what I say today deserves to be judged other than
on its face value. However what over 40 years in IT has encouraged me to
think that those who invite
On Saturday 15 December 2007 10:41:14 Frank J. Laszlo wrote:
David Southwell wrote:
And get this
I have been around the computer world using *nix long before freebsd came
along. That does not mean what I say today deserves to be judged other
than on its face value. However what over 40
Frank J. Laszlo wrote:
I rarely post on -ports anymore, due to the lack of order and respect
for those who actually DO SOMETHING, and not just bitch and moan about
things that should be done.
I remember it was only a few short years ago that ports@ was completely
inundated by receiving
Frank J. Laszlo wrote:
I rarely post on -ports anymore, due to the lack of order and respect
for those who actually DO SOMETHING, and not just bitch and moan about
things that should be done.
Let me also make another point related to this sentence. While
obviously there should be respect
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
you do not maintain any ports
Incorrect I have one that is currently officially pending in the
backlog created by the freeze (the PR is sitting their waiting).
Also as soon that port is done and any errors I may of made as it
being my first port I
On Friday 14 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was not planning to skimp on the requirements at all but the test
case is xorg.
A far better test case, IMHO, would be to run a similar build to the pointyhat
cluster if you're serious about *replacing* the ports system. Unless a new
system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Dawson wrote:
On Friday 14 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was not planning to skimp on the requirements at all but the test
case is xorg.
A far better test case, IMHO, would be to run a similar build to the
pointyhat
cluster if you're
--On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and
def with 345 and 678 then 345 will be cached for def since we already
set it for abc.
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and
def with 345 and 678 then 345 will be cached for def since we already
set it for abc.
How do you know the user wants 345 set on both ports?
It might be a useful
On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and
def with 345 and 678 then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
RW wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and def with 345
and 678 then 345 will be cached for def since we already set it
for abc.
How do you know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and def with 345
and 678
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
RW wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and def with 345
and 678 then 345 will be cached for def since we already set it
for abc.
How do you know the user wants 345 set
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Skip Ford wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
RW wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and def with
345 and 678 then 345 will be cached for def since we
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Remko Lodder wrote:
David Southwell wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Namely if I
David Southwell wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and
def
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Remko Lodder wrote:
David Southwell wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Remko Lodder wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Remko Lodder wrote:
David Southwell wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Remko Lodder wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Remko Lodder wrote:
David Southwell wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
1. Make plan. 2. Ask limited group for sanity check. 3. Code, code
code. Go back to 2. if necessary. Continue to 4. when done. 4.
Ask larger group for sanity check and testing. Go back to 3. if
necessary. Continue to 5. when done. 5. Release.
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Developing in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster we are making
fairly good progress believe it or not I only see an other 1 or 2
threads being needed before actual coding starts, *BUT* producing a
system no one wants is pointless thus it is wise to gather as much
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Remko Lodder wrote:
You Simply dont understand the way it works here and I can
understand that till a certain point of view; take the advise;
discuss it elsewhere, and get back with working code (yeah I repeat
it twice
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Skip Ford wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Developing in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster we are making
fairly good progress believe it or not I only see an other 1 or
2 threads being needed before actual coding starts, *BUT*
producing a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Skip Ford wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Developing in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster we are
making fairly good progress believe it or not I only see an
other 1 or 2 threads being needed before actual coding starts,
Skip Ford wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Developing in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster we are making
fairly good progress believe it or not I only see an other 1 or 2
threads being needed before actual coding starts, *BUT* producing a
system no one wants is pointless thus it is wise
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
That is a little unfair IMHO - Aryeh has to gather information from
those who use the current system, and @ports is clearly the place for
that! Now he may listen to all, some or none of the points of view he
receives... and that may well determine the success or
At 10:08 AM -0600 12/14/07, Paul Schmehl wrote:
SInce I've already killfiled Aryeh,
I guess we should all killfile you, too.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;
--On December 14, 2007 5:21:02 PM -0800 Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Information does indeed need to be gathered, and while even the ports
list will only grab a small percentage of FreeBSD users, other options
would likely grab a lot less. Plus, most of the users here are
knowledgeable
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:51:14PM -0500, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
At 10:08 AM -0600 12/14/07, Paul Schmehl wrote:
SInce I've already killfiled Aryeh,
I guess we should all killfile you, too.
Can we please just stop the meta-thread now and go back to working on all
the myriad things that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It is too bad I am in your killfile because you will not get this ;-)
Yet the proponents of the Aryeh bandwagon keep throwing up this
straw man that those of us who have tired of the useless back and
forth are refusing to listen and uninterested
--On December 14, 2007 7:51:14 PM -0500 Garance A Drosehn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:08 AM -0600 12/14/07, Paul Schmehl wrote:
SInce I've already killfiled Aryeh,
I guess we should all killfile you, too.
Be my guest.
Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Senior Information Security
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On December 14, 2007 5:21:02 PM -0800 Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Information does indeed need to be gathered, and while even the ports
list will only grab a small percentage of FreeBSD users, other options
would likely grab a lot less. Plus, most of the users here
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:58:57 +0100
Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One shortcoming is the lack of locking making parallell builds a bit unsafe.
If you try to build both port A and port B at the same time, and both A and
B depends (directly or indirectly) on port C which is not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yoshihiro Ota wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:58:57 +0100 Erik Trulsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One shortcoming is the lack of locking making parallell builds a
bit unsafe. If you try to build both port A and port B at the
same time, and both A
This thread was called results of ports re-engineering survey but I
figured I would start a new thread.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limits of
the current system, and most of us are completely amazed it even
still
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
This thread was called results of ports re-engineering survey but I figured
I would start a new thread.
Rightly so.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limits of the
current
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steven Kreuzer wrote:
This thread was called results of ports re-engineering survey but
I figured I would start a new thread.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limits of
On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Warren Block wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
This thread was called results of ports re-engineering survey
but I figured I would start a new thread.
Rightly so.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
We *know* it can be done
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Warren Block wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
This thread was called results of ports re-engineering survey
but I figured I would start a new thread.
Rightly so.
On Dec
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:17:34AM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
This thread was called results of ports re-engineering survey but I
figured I would start a new thread.
Rightly so.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
We *know* it can
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:42:43AM -0500, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
This thread was called results of ports re-engineering survey but I
figured I would start a new thread.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limits of the
Steven Kreuzer wrote:
This thread was called results of ports re-engineering survey but I
figured I would start a new thread.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limits of the
current system, and most of us are completely
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:00:54PM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
That is why I plan to use xorg as the test case for the new system
namely if it builds xorg in the most efficent way possible then it
will be considered good enough for release
You need to pick a much more complicated set
I just wonder if you asked the general population, whether they'd rather
have ports or packages, I bet most would vote for packages, aside from
those that actually like watching the compilation output fly by.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Birrell wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:00:54PM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
That is why I plan to use xorg as the test case for the new system
namely if it builds xorg in the most efficent way possible then it
will be considered
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 05:36:07PM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
I was not planning to skimp on the requirements at all but the test
case is xorg... i.e. I will do my best to not compermise on
features/requirements but xorg meets several criteria for being a good
test (out of order building,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Birrell wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 05:36:07PM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
I was not planning to skimp on the requirements at all but the
test case is xorg... i.e. I will do my best to not compermise on
features/requirements but xorg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Danny Pansters wrote:
On Thursday 13 December 2007 19:17:34 Warren Block wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
This thread was called results of ports re-engineering survey but I
figured I would start a new thread.
Rightly so.
On
59 matches
Mail list logo
