Re: Portmaster failing
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 02:50:04PM +0100, Jan Beich wrote: > "Thomas Mueller" writes: > > >> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. There seems to > >> be a pervasive misconception that poudriere is "advanced" and > >> portmaster is simple or straightforward. That notion is completely and > >> totally backwards. Poudriere makes managing ports as simple and > >> trouble-free as possible, and portmaster is specifically for people > >> who can troubleshoot and fix problems like the one you're describing > >> on their own. These problems WILL continue to happen very regularly > >> for portmaster, because portmaster simply cannot do the right thing on > >> its own. It will ALWAYS require manual intervention every time > >> anything remotely significant changes. > > > >> I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about > >> encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted) > >> frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will > >> be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere. If you choose > >> to stay on portmaster, however, then you need to check the resentment > >> about build failures. They are simply an inevitable consequence of > >> using a very old and broken tool that should only be used by people > >> with substantial port-handling experience. > > > >> You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major > >> mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and > >> security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch. > > > > > >> Adam Weinberger > > > > I suppose what you say about portmaster applies equally to portupgrade? > > > > I get the impression that synth and its dependency gcc6-aux are falling > > into desuetude if not actually officially deprecated. > > > > gcc6-aux has not been updated while gcc is up tp 8.3 and 9.2. > > DragonFly has lang/gcc9-aux since > https://github.com/DragonFlyBSD/DeltaPorts/commit/bb774aced6d7 > Synth is still used to build binary packages on DragonFly e.g., > https://sting.dragonflybsd.org/dports/logs/lang___gcc9-aux.log And is phase to be replaced by dsynth in there (rewrite in C by dillon@) Best regards, Bapt signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Portmaster failing
> Unequally, actually. portmaster still has some developers putting in > the hard work to keep it running. portupgrade hasn't had much focused > development in many years and should probably be removed from the > tree. There are some problems with building on a live system that > portmaster can't ever truly alleviate, but it certainly works (when > used by people experienced in handling fallout). portupgrade is just a > system-mangling disaster waiting to happen. > Adam Weinberger I suppose what you say about portmaster applies equally to portupgrade? (from my previous post) I am strongly advised to heed your advice on portupgrade. It seemed to work fairly well, once upon a time, but even then it was necessary to run "pkgdb -F". I looked in the FreeBSD Handbook online, found poudriere. I even ran "make all-depends-list | more" from my FreeBSD installation, found surprisingly few dependencies, wish there were a good way to configure options without dialog4ports. Still, dialog4ports was an improvement over the old dialog, which always messed my screen when I kept a log file. Speaking of system-mangling disaster, NetBSD pkgsrc with pkg_rolling-replace can do that, I am typing this on such a system. from Jan Beich: > DragonFly has lang/gcc9-aux since > https://github.com/DragonFlyBSD/DeltaPorts/commit/bb774aced6d7 > Synth is still used to build binary packages on DragonFly e.g., > https://sting.dragonflybsd.org/dports/logs/lang___gcc9-aux.log I looked on gitweb.dragonflybsd.org, found gcc9-aux, but no gcc7-aux or gcc8-aux, and no gccn-aux on dragonlace.net where n > 6. DragonFly uses git for src and dports trees, in contrast to FreeBSD which uses svn, and NetBSD and OpenBSD which use cvs. Possibly I could try to create my own gcc(7 or 8)-aux on FreeBSD or NetBSD, or cross-compile for Linux. I would follow instructions on software.gnu.org or gcc.gnu.org . 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: Portmaster failing
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 7:56 PM Thomas Mueller wrote: > > > > This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. There seems to > > be a pervasive misconception that poudriere is "advanced" and > > portmaster is simple or straightforward. That notion is completely and > > totally backwards. Poudriere makes managing ports as simple and > > trouble-free as possible, and portmaster is specifically for people > > who can troubleshoot and fix problems like the one you're describing > > on their own. These problems WILL continue to happen very regularly > > for portmaster, because portmaster simply cannot do the right thing on > > its own. It will ALWAYS require manual intervention every time > > anything remotely significant changes. > > > I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about > > encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted) > > frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will > > be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere. If you choose > > to stay on portmaster, however, then you need to check the resentment > > about build failures. They are simply an inevitable consequence of > > using a very old and broken tool that should only be used by people > > with substantial port-handling experience. > > > You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major > > mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and > > security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch. > > > > Adam Weinberger > > I suppose what you say about portmaster applies equally to portupgrade? > > I get the impression that synth and its dependency gcc6-aux are falling into > desuetude if not actually officially deprecated. > > gcc6-aux has not been updated while gcc is up tp 8.3 and 9.2. > > I have never used poudriere, guess I will have to learn how if I stay with > FreeBSD. > > NetBSD pkgsrc also has its problems: has been ported to many other mostly > (quasi-)Unix OSes including FreeBSD, but I never tried pkgsrcc outside > NetBSD, don't think I really want to. > > DragonFlyBSD switched from pkgsrc to dports, and Haiku switched from pkgsrc > to Haikuports. > > Upgrading a large number of ports with portmaster usually required many runs, > correcting the errors after each run, waiting for updates for broken ports. Unequally, actually. portmaster still has some developers putting in the hard work to keep it running. portupgrade hasn't had much focused development in many years and should probably be removed from the tree. There are some problems with building on a live system that portmaster can't ever truly alleviate, but it certainly works (when used by people experienced in handling fallout). portupgrade is just a system-mangling disaster waiting to happen. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.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: Portmaster failing
"Thomas Mueller" writes: >> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. There seems to >> be a pervasive misconception that poudriere is "advanced" and >> portmaster is simple or straightforward. That notion is completely and >> totally backwards. Poudriere makes managing ports as simple and >> trouble-free as possible, and portmaster is specifically for people >> who can troubleshoot and fix problems like the one you're describing >> on their own. These problems WILL continue to happen very regularly >> for portmaster, because portmaster simply cannot do the right thing on >> its own. It will ALWAYS require manual intervention every time >> anything remotely significant changes. > >> I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about >> encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted) >> frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will >> be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere. If you choose >> to stay on portmaster, however, then you need to check the resentment >> about build failures. They are simply an inevitable consequence of >> using a very old and broken tool that should only be used by people >> with substantial port-handling experience. > >> You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major >> mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and >> security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch. > > >> Adam Weinberger > > I suppose what you say about portmaster applies equally to portupgrade? > > I get the impression that synth and its dependency gcc6-aux are falling into > desuetude if not actually officially deprecated. > > gcc6-aux has not been updated while gcc is up tp 8.3 and 9.2. DragonFly has lang/gcc9-aux since https://github.com/DragonFlyBSD/DeltaPorts/commit/bb774aced6d7 Synth is still used to build binary packages on DragonFly e.g., https://sting.dragonflybsd.org/dports/logs/lang___gcc9-aux.log ___ 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: Portmaster failing
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 23:28:30 +0100 Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > For example: FreeBSD uses mailman2 for lists.freebsd.org, which needs > python 2.7, which, as far as the python community is involved, > is no longer supported. > py27-backports-1 py27-backports.functools_lru_cache-1.5 py27-backports_abc-0.5 py27-cairo-1.18.1_1 py27-cython-0.29.13_1 py27-dateutil-2.8.0 py27-futures-3.2.0 py27-gobject-2.28.6_8 py27-gtk2-2.24.0_5 py27-html5lib-1.0.1 py27-isodate-0.6.0 py27-kiwisolver-1.1.0 py27-lxml-4.4.2 py27-matplotlib-2.2.4_1 py27-numpy-1.16.5_2,1 py27-pygments-2.4.1 py27-pyparsing-2.4.6 py27-pytz-2019.3,1 py27-scour-0.37 py27-setuptools-41.4.0_1 py27-setuptools_scm-3.3.3 py27-singledispatch-3.4.0.3_1 py27-sip-4.19.19_1,1 py27-six-1.12.0 py27-tkinter-2.7.17_6 py27-tornado-5.1.1 py27-webencodings-0.5.1 For example: pkg info -r py27-numpy py27-numpy-1.16.5_2,1: py27-matplotlib-2.2.4_1 inkscape-0.92.4_12 root@lumiwa:~# pkg info -d py27-numpy py27-numpy-1.16.5_2,1: suitesparse-5.4.0_4 lapack-3.5.0_8 cblas-1.0_12 blas-3.5.0_6 python27-2.7.17_1 gcc9-9.2.0 py27-setuptools-41.4.0_1 pkg info -r py37-numpy py37-numpy-1.16.5_2,1: blender-2.80_6 py37-spyder-3.2.7_7 py37-pandas-0.24.2_1,1 py37-scipy-1.2.2_1 py37-numexpr-2.7.0 py37-bottleneck-1.3.1 py37-matplotlib-2.2.4_1 root@lumiwa:~# pkg info -d py37-numpy py37-numpy-1.16.5_2,1: suitesparse-5.4.0_4 lapack-3.5.0_8 cblas-1.0_12 blas-3.5.0_6 python37-3.7.6 gcc9-9.2.0 py37-setuptools-41.4.0_1 And how long is python 27 deprecated? I am portmaster user too because I have a single FreeBSD machine and I do not want to destroying hard drive with poudriere. -- “good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws” Plato ___ 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: Portmaster failing
On 01/01/2020 22:03, George Mitchell wrote: > Assuming you can get poudriere to work. Even by today's standards, > a low-cost PC is not going to have the juice to support it. And to > reiterate, the ports framework itself MUST work standalone. Rubbish. I maintain my own poudriere repo on a machine that is over 6 years old and that cost less than £500 when I first built it. A very ordinary PC will be able to run poudriere perfectly well. Cheers, Matthew signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Portmaster failing
On 01 Jan 2020, at 16:57, Adam Weinberger wrote: > Ok, let’s stop there. Nobody is going to get fired, and insulting What? No, seriously, what? ___ 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: Portmaster failing
On 2/01/2020 7:37 am, @lbutlr wrote: Portmaser -L errors out with make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ssl.mk" line 97: You are using an unsupported SSL provider openssl Make.conf: DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl apache=2.4 php=7.2 perl5=5.28 mysql=10.1m Worked fine on Saturday, maybe Friday. Tracked earlier and resolved here: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243014 ___ 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: Portmaster failing
> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. There seems to > be a pervasive misconception that poudriere is "advanced" and > portmaster is simple or straightforward. That notion is completely and > totally backwards. Poudriere makes managing ports as simple and > trouble-free as possible, and portmaster is specifically for people > who can troubleshoot and fix problems like the one you're describing > on their own. These problems WILL continue to happen very regularly > for portmaster, because portmaster simply cannot do the right thing on > its own. It will ALWAYS require manual intervention every time > anything remotely significant changes. > I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about > encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted) > frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will > be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere. If you choose > to stay on portmaster, however, then you need to check the resentment > about build failures. They are simply an inevitable consequence of > using a very old and broken tool that should only be used by people > with substantial port-handling experience. > You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major > mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and > security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch. > Adam Weinberger I suppose what you say about portmaster applies equally to portupgrade? I get the impression that synth and its dependency gcc6-aux are falling into desuetude if not actually officially deprecated. gcc6-aux has not been updated while gcc is up tp 8.3 and 9.2. I have never used poudriere, guess I will have to learn how if I stay with FreeBSD. NetBSD pkgsrc also has its problems: has been ported to many other mostly (quasi-)Unix OSes including FreeBSD, but I never tried pkgsrcc outside NetBSD, don't think I really want to. DragonFlyBSD switched from pkgsrc to dports, and Haiku switched from pkgsrc to Haikuports. Upgrading a large number of ports with portmaster usually required many runs, correcting the errors after each run, waiting for updates for broken ports. 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: Portmaster failing
> On Jan 1, 2020, at 15:49, @lbutlr wrote: > You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch. >>> >>> Since openssl updated about a week ago, this oversight falls into the class >>> that I would call ???inexcusable???. If I did this on a job I would >>> (rightly) be immediately fired. >>> >>> I would fire me if I did something like this. > >> If we fired every volunteer when some mishap has happened, we >> would run of of volunteers very fast. > > This was the responsibility of a single volunteer? Removing openssl without > warning wasn’t something that was discussed over the last six months? Ok, let’s stop there. Nobody is going to get fired, and insulting our team of volunteers who worked incredibly hard to bring the openssl switch to fruition is unproductive and uncalled-for. I already acknowledged that we need to do it better next time, so let’s focus instead on solving problems rather than lashing out to people who are here simply to help. # Adam — Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.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: Portmaster failing
On 01 Jan 2020, at 15:28, Kurt Jaeger wrote: >> If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do >> so. If not, then the other packages managers and the ports tree >> itself have to work without screwing the admin, failing to build >> for inexplicable reasons, inputting a dependency that breaks other >> packages, or my favorite, failing to update dependencies. > > If we'd remove portmaster, we'd loose a relevant part of our > user-base, that's why is has not been removed. This caused > other issues, as you are well aware. If you are concerned about losing users without postmaster then fix postmaster. Leaving a port manage that is “broken” is not going to do anything but hurt everyone. > The open source community (and FreeBSD) really has problems with > the velocity of the software involved -- and can barely keep up. > > So it's not that easy. Bit they are perfectly happy to drop support when the replacement packages are still not up to snuff. >>> You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major >>> mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and >>> security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch. >> >> Since openssl updated about a week ago, this oversight falls into the class >> that I would call ???inexcusable???. If I did this on a job I would >> (rightly) be immediately fired. >> >> I would fire me if I did something like this. > If we fired every volunteer when some mishap has happened, we > would run of of volunteers very fast. This was the responsibility of a single volunteer? Removing openssl without warning wasn’t something that was discussed over the last six months? -- Lead me not into temptation, I can find the way. ___ 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: Portmaster failing
Hi! > If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do > so. If not, then the other packages managers and the ports tree > itself have to work without screwing the admin, failing to build > for inexplicable reasons, inputting a dependency that breaks other > packages, or my favorite, failing to update dependencies. If we'd remove portmaster, we'd loose a relevant part of our user-base, that's why is has not been removed. This caused other issues, as you are well aware. But there's no easy solution given the amount of volunteer skills and capacity available, see below. > > I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about > > encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted) > > frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will > > be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere. > > It is not that simple, of course. This will take quite a lot of work, and a > lot of time, for something that I deal with a handful of times a year. This > means that for the foreseeable future, I would be starting over basically > every time there is some issue. > > > They are simply an inevitable consequence of using a very old and broken > > tool > > If the tool is broken, remove it. For example: FreeBSD uses mailman2 for lists.freebsd.org, which needs python 2.7, which, as far as the python community is involved, is no longer supported. The open source community (and FreeBSD) really has problems with the velocity of the software involved -- and can barely keep up. So it's not that easy. > > You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major > > mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and > > security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch. > > Since openssl updated about a week ago, this oversight falls into the class > that I would call ???inexcusable???. If I did this on a job I would (rightly) > be immediately fired. > > I would fire me if I did something like this. If we fired every volunteer when some mishap has happened, we would run of of volunteers very fast. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372Now what ? ___ 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: Portmaster failing
On 01 Jan 2020, at 14:18, Adam Weinberger wrote > This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do so. If not, then the other packages managers and the ports tree itself have to work without screwing the admin, failing to build for inexplicable reasons, inputting a dependency that breaks other packages, or my favorite, failing to update dependencies. > I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about > encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted) > frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will > be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere. It is not that simple, of course. This will take quite a lot of work, and a lot of time, for something that I deal with a handful of times a year. This means that for the foreseeable future, I would be starting over basically every time there is some issue. > They are simply an inevitable consequence of using a very old and broken tool If the tool is broken, remove it. > You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major > mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and > security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch. Since openssl updated about a week ago, this oversight falls into the class that I would call “inexcusable”. If I did this on a job I would (rightly) be immediately fired. I would fire me if I did something like this. -- In the 60's, people took acid to make the world appear weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it appear normal. ___ 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: Portmaster failing
## George Mitchell (george+free...@m5p.com):
> Assuming you can get poudriere to work. Even by today's standards,
> a low-cost PC is not going to have the juice to support it. And to
> reiterate, the ports framework itself MUST work standalone.
The pain you'll experience (eventually) from the breakage resulting
from just ol' plain "make install"s is much worse than running poudriere.
Most non-trivial software will not build predictably in an unclean
environment, and forget about keeping it working when your environment
changes (the time I've spent chasing shared library problems... that's
time I'll never get back). (Note that I'm not talking about reproducable
builds, which is yet another can of worms).
If you can't build with poudriere locally, you should look into renting
CPU time ("cloud" as they call it these days) or use packages.
Regards,
Christoph
--
Spare Space
___
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: Portmaster failing
## @lbutlr (krem...@kreme.com): > I have /usr/ports/security/openssl111 and no /usr/ports/security/openssl > which doesn’t sound like what you said. You're missing https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision=date=521745 By the way, base openssl is at 1.1.1d in FreeBSD 12.1. Regards, Christoph -- Spare Space ___ 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: Portmaster failing
On 2020-01-01 16:23, Franco Fichtner wrote: > Hi Adam, > >> On 1. Jan 2020, at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> [...] >> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. > > Let me stop you right here and say: ports Framework itself is > suffering from this wishful attitude PLUS UMPTEEN*!!! > and this has nothing to do > with readily available poudriere "replacements" which are not > as good as poudriere for sure. Assuming you can get poudriere to work. Even by today's standards, a low-cost PC is not going to have the juice to support it. And to reiterate, the ports framework itself MUST work standalone. > If the ports framework isn't seen as a stand alone infrastructure > worth its own integrity the discussion is already dead and the > quality will keep to decline for every casual FreeBSD user who > doesn't really care for this or that tool, but wants to install > software from the ports tree manually. > [...] -- George * umpteen: an unspecified large number signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Portmaster failing
On Jan 1, 2020, at 14:23, Franco Fichtner wrote: > > Hi Adam, > >> On 1. Jan 2020, at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:51 PM @lbutlr wrote: >>> >>> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner wrote: > On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr wrote: > > On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote: >> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become >> security/openssl. > > Ugh. > >> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, >> don't we. ;) > > This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are any > indication. With PHP 5.6 axed prematurely a while back I am interested to see OpenSSL 1.0.2 phased out now with a number of ports still not supporting 1.1.1 and seeing them marked as broken sooner or later. >>> >>> Well, at this point I cannot install openssl111 without deinstalling >>> openssl, which I cannot deinstall since it is gone from ports. >>> >>> Looks like I have to remove openssl, which … I mean, seriously, this seems >>> pretty hostile. >>> >>> Name : openssl >>> Version: 1.0.2u,1 >>> Installed on : Sun Dec 22 08:13:27 2019 MST >>> >>> There was nothing at all on the 22nd about “WARNING THIS WILL BREAK >>> EVERYTHING IN A WEEK” which to mean seems like it should have been made >>> super obvious. >> >> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. > > Let me stop you right here and say: ports Framework itself is > suffering from this wishful attitude and this has nothing to do > with readily available poudriere "replacements" which are not > as good as poudriere for sure. > > If the ports framework isn't seen as a stand alone infrastructure > worth its own integrity the discussion is already dead and the > quality will keep to decline for every casual FreeBSD user who > doesn't really care for this or that tool, but wants to install > software from the ports tree manually. > > > Cheers, > Franco I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. The ports tree has grown too complex for a simple “make install” to be a predictable process. What we have now is a major usability problem wherein we have a large handful of tools, all but one of which are essentially broken. We do need a new approach to this problem. # Adam — Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.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: Portmaster failing
Hi Adam, > On 1. Jan 2020, at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:51 PM @lbutlr wrote: >> >> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr wrote: On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote: > security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become > security/openssl. Ugh. > A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, > don't we. ;) This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are any indication. >>> >>> With PHP 5.6 axed prematurely a while back I am interested to see OpenSSL >>> 1.0.2 >>> phased out now with a number of ports still not supporting 1.1.1 and seeing >>> them >>> marked as broken sooner or later. >> >> Well, at this point I cannot install openssl111 without deinstalling >> openssl, which I cannot deinstall since it is gone from ports. >> >> Looks like I have to remove openssl, which … I mean, seriously, this seems >> pretty hostile. >> >> Name : openssl >> Version: 1.0.2u,1 >> Installed on : Sun Dec 22 08:13:27 2019 MST >> >> There was nothing at all on the 22nd about “WARNING THIS WILL BREAK >> EVERYTHING IN A WEEK” which to mean seems like it should have been made >> super obvious. > > This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. Let me stop you right here and say: ports Framework itself is suffering from this wishful attitude and this has nothing to do with readily available poudriere "replacements" which are not as good as poudriere for sure. If the ports framework isn't seen as a stand alone infrastructure worth its own integrity the discussion is already dead and the quality will keep to decline for every casual FreeBSD user who doesn't really care for this or that tool, but wants to install software from the ports tree manually. Cheers, Franco ___ 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: Portmaster failing
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:51 PM @lbutlr wrote: > > On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr wrote: > >> > >> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote: > >>> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become > >>> security/openssl. > >> > >> Ugh. > >> > >>> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, > >>> don't we. ;) > >> > >> This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are any > >> indication. > > > > With PHP 5.6 axed prematurely a while back I am interested to see OpenSSL > > 1.0.2 > > phased out now with a number of ports still not supporting 1.1.1 and seeing > > them > > marked as broken sooner or later. > > Well, at this point I cannot install openssl111 without deinstalling openssl, > which I cannot deinstall since it is gone from ports. > > Looks like I have to remove openssl, which … I mean, seriously, this seems > pretty hostile. > > Name : openssl > Version: 1.0.2u,1 > Installed on : Sun Dec 22 08:13:27 2019 MST > > There was nothing at all on the 22nd about “WARNING THIS WILL BREAK > EVERYTHING IN A WEEK” which to mean seems like it should have been made super > obvious. This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. There seems to be a pervasive misconception that poudriere is "advanced" and portmaster is simple or straightforward. That notion is completely and totally backwards. Poudriere makes managing ports as simple and trouble-free as possible, and portmaster is specifically for people who can troubleshoot and fix problems like the one you're describing on their own. These problems WILL continue to happen very regularly for portmaster, because portmaster simply cannot do the right thing on its own. It will ALWAYS require manual intervention every time anything remotely significant changes. I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted) frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere. If you choose to stay on portmaster, however, then you need to check the resentment about build failures. They are simply an inevitable consequence of using a very old and broken tool that should only be used by people with substantial port-handling experience. You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.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: Portmaster failing
On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner wrote: > > > >> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr wrote: >> >> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote: >>> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become >>> security/openssl. >> >> Ugh. >> >>> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, >>> don't we. ;) >> >> This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are any >> indication. > > With PHP 5.6 axed prematurely a while back I am interested to see OpenSSL > 1.0.2 > phased out now with a number of ports still not supporting 1.1.1 and seeing > them > marked as broken sooner or later. Well, at this point I cannot install openssl111 without deinstalling openssl, which I cannot deinstall since it is gone from ports. Looks like I have to remove openssl, which … I mean, seriously, this seems pretty hostile. Name : openssl Version: 1.0.2u,1 Installed on : Sun Dec 22 08:13:27 2019 MST There was nothing at all on the 22nd about “WARNING THIS WILL BREAK EVERYTHING IN A WEEK” which to mean seems like it should have been made super obvious. -- There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don’t. ___ 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: Portmaster failing
> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr wrote: > > On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote: >> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become >> security/openssl. > > Ugh. > >> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, >> don't we. ;) > > This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are any > indication. With PHP 5.6 axed prematurely a while back I am interested to see OpenSSL 1.0.2 phased out now with a number of ports still not supporting 1.1.1 and seeing them marked as broken sooner or later. With all this in mind, I'm surprised Python did not suffer the same fate and was deprecate-extended to the end of 2020 in the ports tree which is an unusual 180 regarding previous arguments that having expired ports still supported is "too much work". Happy new year, Franco ___ 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: Portmaster failing
On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote: > security/openssl111 has become security/openssl. I have /usr/ports/security/openssl111 and no /usr/ports/security/openssl which doesn’t sound like what you said. -- 'Pcharn'kov!' Footnote: 'Your feet shall be cut off and be buried several yards from your body so your ghost won't walk.' --Interesting Times ___ 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: Portmaster failing
On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote: > security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become > security/openssl. Ugh. > A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, don't > we. ;) This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are any indication. -- people didn't seem to be able to remember what it was like with the elves around. Life was certainly more interesting then, but usually because it was shorter. And it was more colourful, if you liked the colour of blood. --Lords and Ladies ___ 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: Portmaster failing
security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become security/openssl. A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, don't we. ;) Cheers, Franco > On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:37 PM, @lbutlr wrote: > > Portmaser -L errors out with > > make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ssl.mk" line 97: You are using an unsupported SSL > provider openssl > > Make.conf: > DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl apache=2.4 php=7.2 perl5=5.28 mysql=10.1m > > Worked fine on Saturday, maybe Friday. > > > > -- > i wasn't born a programmer. i became one because i was impatient. - > Dave Winer > > ___ > 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"
Portmaster failing
Portmaser -L errors out with make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ssl.mk" line 97: You are using an unsupported SSL provider openssl Make.conf: DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl apache=2.4 php=7.2 perl5=5.28 mysql=10.1m Worked fine on Saturday, maybe Friday. -- i wasn't born a programmer. i became one because i was impatient. - Dave Winer ___ 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"
portmaster failing with build dependencies recognition
hi doug and ports@ i'm installing a system from scratch in a jail with portmaster 2.21, with the build/packages options enabled: `-- cat /usr/local/etc/portmaster.rc ALWAYS_SCRUB_DISTFILES=dopt LOCAL_PACKAGEDIR=/usr/ports/packages MAKE_PACKAGE=gopt PM_DEL_BUILD_ONLY=pm_dbo PM_INDEX=pm_index PM_PACKAGES_BUILD=pmp_build while having only six ports installed (ccache, zsh, portmaster, pkg_cutleaves, subversion-freebsd and sudo), the command `sudo portmaster www/nspluginwrapper www/linux-f10-flashplugin` installed ALL the dependencies (with the exception of pkg-config) from a package, and removed them at the end (with pkg_delete obviously complaining about them being required packages) commenting PM_DEL_BUILD_ONLY and PM_PACKAGES_BUILD completely fixed the issue, so there must be something wrong with the recognition of build dependencies. i remember that you did something to that algorithm some time ago (logs say that), and i'm sure that it was working correctly before... btw, thanks for the work you're doing on this tool, it's greater at every release :) -- Alberto Villa, FreeBSD committer avi...@freebsd.org http://people.FreeBSD.org/~avilla It is your concern when your neighbor's wall is on fire. -- Quintus Horatius Flaccus (Horace) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: portmaster failing with build dependencies recognition
On 04/11/10 06:33, Alberto Villa wrote:
hi doug and ports@
i'm installing a system from scratch in a jail with portmaster 2.21, with the
build/packages options enabled:
`-- cat /usr/local/etc/portmaster.rc
ALWAYS_SCRUB_DISTFILES=dopt
LOCAL_PACKAGEDIR=/usr/ports/packages
MAKE_PACKAGE=gopt
PM_DEL_BUILD_ONLY=pm_dbo
PM_INDEX=pm_index
PM_PACKAGES_BUILD=pmp_build
while having only six ports installed (ccache, zsh, portmaster,
pkg_cutleaves,
subversion-freebsd and sudo), the command `sudo portmaster
www/nspluginwrapper www/linux-f10-flashplugin`
No need to do 'sudo portmaster.' Check out the man page for how to
configure automatic sudo support.
installed ALL the dependencies (with the exception of pkg-config) from a
package,
Hmmm, so even the run dependencies were installed from a package? That's
bad.
and removed them at the end
Ok, I'm pretty sure I see the problem. Please test the attached patch
and let me know how it goes.
In case anyone cares the bug is that I tested the heck out of the
--index-only option and made a slight change to how the list of build
dependencies is compared to the list of run dependencies as a result. It
worked with --index-only, but I obviously neglected to test it again
without --index-only. Mea culpa.
Doug
--
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Index: portmaster
===
--- portmaster (revision 206442)
+++ portmaster (working copy)
@@ -1998,6 +1998,8 @@
for l in $temp_list ; do
list=$list `grep -m1 ^${l}\| $PM_INDEX | cut -f 2 -d
\|`
done
+
+ list= $list
fi
echo $list
@@ -2031,11 +2033,11 @@
if [ $PM_BUILD_ONLY_LIST = pmp_doing_build_deps ]; then
local rundeps dep varname run_dl build_only_dl
- rundeps= `gen_dep_list run-depends-list`
+ rundeps=`gen_dep_list run-depends-list`
for dep in $d_port_list; do
case $rundeps in
- * ${dep} *)
+ * ${dep} *|*${dep}*)
varname=`echo ${dep#$pd/} | sed 's#[-+/\.]#_#g'`
rundep_list=$rundep_list $varname
eval $varname=\$portdir \$$varname\
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster failing with build dependencies recognition
On Sunday 11 April 2010 22:35:02 Doug Barton wrote: No need to do 'sudo portmaster.' Check out the man page for how to configure automatic sudo support. i know that option, but i prefer the way `sudo portmaster` works. it's ok, anyway ;) Ok, I'm pretty sure I see the problem. Please test the attached patch and let me know how it goes. it works! thank you! :D In case anyone cares the bug is that I tested the heck out of the --index-only option and made a slight change to how the list of build dependencies is compared to the list of run dependencies as a result. It worked with --index-only, but I obviously neglected to test it again without --index-only. Mea culpa. while i'm here, let me say that the --index flag is making updates really faster! -- Alberto Villa, FreeBSD committer avi...@freebsd.org http://people.FreeBSD.org/~avilla The greatest of faults is to be conscious of none. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
