Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/03/17 19:26, Thomas Mueller wrote:

from Baho Utot:


I don't use HEAD.  I use Quartlery with synth.  It is just I expect a little
more than amature hour.  I was on Archlinux for 10 years and they are very
bleeding edge.  Almost No breakage in ten years. The only reason I left Linux
was systemd.  After landing in FreeBSD the experence has been terrible at
best, I have been a user for more than 5 years hoping that things would get
better after seeing all the work promised not getting done.  I am done with
FreeBSD and I am going to my own scratch built Linux.  I already have all my
raspberry pi on my own linux version and now I am working on moving my
desktops.  Should be complete by the end of the year.


I never got started with Archlinux because of their mailing lists' severe 
moderation policy.  I became an infant mortality.

I asked how and if it was possible to rebuild the Archlinux system from source 
as is done with FreeBSD and NetBSD, but that message was rejected by moderator, 
explanation being that I could find the answer in one minute, or was it ten 
minutes, from the wiki.  I still haven't found it.  I unsubscribed about two 
days later.

I suppose you're aware of Linux From Scratch and Cross Linux From Scratch 
(trac.clfs.org)?

Two distros you could try are Voidlinux (voidlinux.eu) and Gentoo 
(www.gentoo.org).

I have git-cloned their source/package trees.

I would like to get back to Linux but am not ready to give up on FreeBSD.

Tom

Yes I am aware of LFS,  I have a github account with builds from them 
where I add rpm and pacman package managers to the LFS builds.  They are 
a bit dated as they are version 7.5.  I am going to update those to 8.1, 
as I am currently working on those.  I will have the desktop builds 
there also.


___
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 Baho Utot:

> I don't use HEAD.  I use Quartlery with synth.  It is just I expect a little
> more than amature hour.  I was on Archlinux for 10 years and they are very
> bleeding edge.  Almost No breakage in ten years. The only reason I left Linux
> was systemd.  After landing in FreeBSD the experence has been terrible at
> best, I have been a user for more than 5 years hoping that things would get
> better after seeing all the work promised not getting done.  I am done with
> FreeBSD and I am going to my own scratch built Linux.  I already have all my
> raspberry pi on my own linux version and now I am working on moving my
> desktops.  Should be complete by the end of the year.

I never got started with Archlinux because of their mailing lists' severe 
moderation policy.  I became an infant mortality.

I asked how and if it was possible to rebuild the Archlinux system from source 
as is done with FreeBSD and NetBSD, but that message was rejected by moderator, 
explanation being that I could find the answer in one minute, or was it ten 
minutes, from the wiki.  I still haven't found it.  I unsubscribed about two 
days later.

I suppose you're aware of Linux From Scratch and Cross Linux From Scratch 
(trac.clfs.org)?

Two distros you could try are Voidlinux (voidlinux.eu) and Gentoo 
(www.gentoo.org).

I have git-cloned their source/package trees.

I would like to get back to Linux but am not ready to give up on FreeBSD.

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?

[Garance A Drosehn]

On 29 Sep 2017, at 15:21, Marco Beishuizen wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, the wise Thomas Mueller wrote:
>
>> What is the current status of portupgrade and portmaster?
>>
>> I haven't used portupgrade in some time, but what about portmaster?
>
> Using portupgrade every day and still works great. Tried portmaster
> once but liked portupgrade more. I use poudriere just for testing
> ports.

FWIW, I still stick with portupgrade and am happy to continue using
it.  It works fine for my systems and the collection of ports that I
use.  Every 14-18 months some change comes up where I run into
some significant headache with my ports, and when that happens I
prefer to rebuild my entire ports collection from scratch.  I do this
in a chroot environment on that system, so I can start from scratch
and build up a full collection without disrupting anything on my
system.  Once I have successfully build a brand new collection of
ports, then I switch from my older ports-collection to the
newly-rebuilt ports-collection.

During one of those situations where my current ports-collection
was experiencing problems, I made a serious effort to try poudriere.
It did not work for me in that situation.  And based on what I went
through in that situation, I suspect it is not a good fit for my
(few) freebsd systems.  The problem is that I have only a few systems,
and they are very different.  (different major releases of FreeBSD,
different hardware architectures, or significantly different sets of
ports).  I expect that if I had *more* systems, and if those systems
were more similar, then poudriere would be a valuable tool for me.

That's my own experience.  I doubt it will convince anyone who has a
different set of requirements than I do.

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn= dro...@rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer   or   g...@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY;  USA
___
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?

[Matthew Seaman]

On 02/10/2017 19:58, Marco Beishuizen wrote:
> 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!

Even so, so long as your host system and your poudriere jail are ABI
compatible, then you *don't* need to upgrade your pourdiere jail in
lock-step with your host.  The poudriere jail only needs to be binary
compatible -- ie. the same major version of FreeBSD -- and not newer
than the host system.  Even the reason for having the same major version
is just so that the packages you build will run where you want to deploy
them -- you can run a jail of an earlier major version if you have older
systems to support, or you can run an i386 jail on an amd64 server if
you have 32bit machines to support.

Not upgrading your poudriere jail has one big advantage -- as soon as
you update the jail, poudriere will rebuild /all/ of your packages.
Avoiding updating the jail means you can just carry on doing incremental
updates and save some CPU cycles.

Cheers,

Matthew



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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"

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

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: 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: 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: 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"

Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Matthew D. Fuller]

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.


-- 
Matthew Fuller (MF4839)   |  fulle...@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
   On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
___
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 00:19, RW via freebsd-ports wrote:

I meant installing up-to-date packages from the *local* repository. So
if only Firefox needs to be updated would Poudriere first install
Firefox's dependencies into the jail from locally generated package
files before building Firefox.


Poudriere builds repositories and yes, uses any package already built in 
that repository if it's a build dependency for another. Note that you 
have multiple repos, built with different base jails, different ports 
trees, different sets of packages, options, make.conf options.


But even for single machine use, it allows simple building of any list 
of wanted packages, it makes sure those and their dependencies are 
built, up to date (relative to the ports tree it's configured to use), 
and kept as a persistent repository. You can even delete a package txz 
from the repo manually, on next bulk run it will simply rebuild what's 
missing.



--
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?

[RW via freebsd-ports]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 20:53:29 +0200
Vlad K. wrote:

> On 2017-10-01 18:24, RW via freebsd-ports wrote:
> > 
> > Do you mean as opposed to installing the dependencies from the
> > repository, or are you saying that it rebuilds them?  
> 
> Poudriere builds isolated, in jails. That means it's not reusing 
> packages installed on the host, nor from another repo, if those are 
> needed as (build) dependencies.

I meant installing up-to-date packages from the *local* repository. So
if only Firefox needs to be updated would Poudriere first install
Firefox's dependencies into the jail from locally generated package
files before building Firefox.

If that happens then there wouldn't be much incentive to use anything
from the host as any package installed on the host would be in the
local repository - you'd just save a few installs.

 
___
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 2017-10-01 18:24, RW via freebsd-ports wrote:


Do you mean as opposed to installing the dependencies from the
repository, or are you saying that it rebuilds them?


Poudriere builds isolated, in jails. That means it's not reusing 
packages installed on the host, nor from another repo, if those are 
needed as (build) dependencies.


Unless of course it grew this ability recently and I'm gravely mistaken, 
but I don't know of such addition.




--
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?

[Torfinn Ingolfsen]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Carmel NY  wrote:
> lifting leaving me free to work on more important projects. I suppose I could
> always go back to “portupgrade”; however, I understand that it is not being
> maintained either.

FWIW, portupgrade has received enough maintenance that it continues to
work nicely on at least stable/11 and stable/10.
And I am grateful for that.

HTH
-- 
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen
___
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?

[RW via freebsd-ports]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 12:26:25 +0200
Vlad K. wrote:

> Another problem is poudriere's inability to reuse already installed 
> packages, if they're a dependency for something being built by it. 
> Personally I'd never use that option, as I want clean, isolated
> rebuilds of everything affected, but I can understand how quick
> building of one or two packages could use already installed deps, if
> people wanted that (and break any promise of integrity facilitated
> with isolated builds).

Do you mean as opposed to installing the dependencies from the
repository, or are you saying that it rebuilds them?   
___
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 2017-10-01 12:34, 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?

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


It's not. Poudriere builds a pkg repo, and automatically rebuilds all 
ports that have changed version (including epoch and portrevision, so 
essentially -- changed version string), including all ports that depend 
on ports that changed (see my previous post about frequent rebuilds), or 
became a new dependency.


So you can have it build updates in the background and when you're done, 
just issue pkg upgrade.


Another benefit of this approach is that you don't get partial updates 
for a program that's in active use. I've seen this cause failure a lot 
of times, eg with perl. The master program is running or being actively 
run (from cron or initiated by user), not yet updated but a dep just 
updated. Crash.




I have a small system. Three PCs plus a number of laptops. Only one 
machine
runs FreeBSD. I don’t have the time to be a slave to this system. It 
appears
that there is a considerable amount of manual configuration to get 
poudriere
up and running, which means there is a significant possibility of 
making

mistakes.


Depends on the definition of "significant". With poudriere you really 
have four steps at minimum to get started:


1. create the builder jail (poudriere jail -c ...)
2. create the ports tree (poudriere ports -c ...) -- create new, or 
point it to use system's /usr/ports

3. create a file that lists ports you want build for that repo
3a. optional step, issue poudriere options ..., to set non-default 
options .

4. configure /etc/pkg.conf to use the repo poudriere is building


After that, the workflow is simple:

1. update ports tree (poudriere ports -u)
2. manage new/changed options (poudriere options ...)
3. run build (poudriere bulk ...)
4. when it's done, pkg upgrade

It's covered in the handbook:

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/ports-poudriere.html


The above is just a minimum, but poudriere allows you to have many 
builder jails (eg for 64 or 32 bit, for different ABIs, ...), and many 
package option sets, so essentially it can create many repositories that 
differ in supported arch, abi, options used, packages listed, ...



--
Vlad K.
Acheron Media, Croatia
www.acheronmedia.hr
+385 95 536 3850
___
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 10:51:39 +0100, Matthew Seaman stated:

>On 30/09/2017 18:06, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> John did state that he would continue to support synth. I can't say if he
>> has continued to make contributions. In any case, only poudriere is
>> available for maintaining ports in HEAD and I, for one, feel that it is
>> simply unacceptable as it make FreeBSD unusable for those of us with only
>> "small" systems where the weight poudriere simply can't be justified. (I
>> have no system with other than SATA disk drives and, for my current needs,
>> 1 TB of SATA on my development system and .5TB on my production system is
>> adequate. Both systems are physically constrained in expansion capability,
>> though otherwise easily meet my requirements.  
>
>I don't know what it is about poudriere that elicits this immediate
>reaction that it is some sort of behemoth, trampling through disks by
>the bushel, shouldering aside other processes to seize the best bits of
>RAM and making CPUs cry with incessant demands for more cycles.
>
>It's simply not so.
>
>poudriere is really a very thin layer of shell scripts (and a few other
>bits) over the general ports make system.  All of the really heavy
>lifting is done by the compilers and so forth /that you'ld have to
>invoke anyhow/.
>
>In fact, I'd say that if your system is /at all/ capable of building the
>ports you want, then it is perfectly capable of running poudriere to
>help automate that.
>
>Yes, the pkg builders used by the project are pretty chunky bits of kit.
> That's because they are building some 30,000 ports for about 8
>different combinations of OS and CPU architecture with a cycle time of
>less than two days.
>
>If you're just building a few hundred ports for your own consumption,
>then you don't need anything like that amount of resource.  I manage
>perfectly well with a 6-year old Core2Duo with 8GB RAM and some 500GB
>SSDs which cost me under £500 originally + about £200 for replacement
>drives later on.  Which also runs a bunch of other stuff including my
>mail system.

This is probably OT for this thread; however, at this point I don’t think it
matters much.

I have read up on poudriere although I have never used it. I have several
questions that I cannot find the answer too.

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?

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

I have a small system. Three PCs plus a number of laptops. Only one machine
runs FreeBSD. I don’t have the time to be a slave to this system. It appears
that there is a considerable amount of manual configuration to get poudriere
up and running, which means there is a significant possibility of making
mistakes.

Synth, and before that “portmanager”, and then “portupgrade” do all the heavy
lifting leaving me free to work on more important projects. I suppose I could
always go back to “portupgrade”; however, I understand that it is not being
maintained either.

If FreeBSD cannot get the problems with synth corrected when FreeBSD-12 is
released, perhaps it will be time to consider a new OS.

-- 
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Vlad K.]

On 2017-10-01 11:51, Matthew Seaman wrote:

poudriere is really a very thin layer of shell scripts (and a few other
bits) over the general ports make system.  All of the really heavy
lifting is done by the compilers and so forth /that you'ld have to
invoke anyhow/.


There is one tiny problem that users see often and that's the rebuilding 
of all reverse deps for any port that changed, which can result with 
frequent rebuilds of tens or hundreds of packages. But -- that's only a 
good thing. I've never had issues with eg. perl upgrades that portmaster 
users seem to have often.


However, CCACHE is very effective in this situation. As an example 
CCACHE reduces building of Firefox from ~45 minutes down to 3-4 minutes, 
in my case.


Another problem is poudriere's inability to reuse already installed 
packages, if they're a dependency for something being built by it. 
Personally I'd never use that option, as I want clean, isolated rebuilds 
of everything affected, but I can understand how quick building of one 
or two packages could use already installed deps, if people wanted that 
(and break any promise of integrity facilitated with isolated builds).


I'll also second the opinion -- if you're building from ports on a 
machine anyway, poudriere does not in any way require any more resources 
except to store produced packages and ccache files, which is not much.



--
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?

[Thomas Mueller]

> John did state that he would continue to support synth. I can't say if he
> has continued to make contributions. In any case, only poudriere is
> available for maintaining ports in HEAD and I, for one, feel that it is
> simply unacceptable as it make FreeBSD unusable for those of us with only
> "small" systems where the weight poudriere simply can't be justified. (I
> have no system with other than SATA disk drives and, for my current needs,
> 1 TB of SATA on my development system and .5TB on my production system is
> adequate. Both systems are physically constrained in expansion capability,
> though otherwise easily meet my requirements.

> 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.

> Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer

I keep svn-updating 11-STABLE and HEAD, but the ino64 issue with some ports 
including gcc(5,6)-aux holds me back from activity on HEAD.

But conceivably there could be a fix in the future.

I also keep cvs-updating NetBSD-HEAD and pkgsrc.

On FreeBSD, I am also miffed by the lack of support for my Realtek 8111E/8168 
chip on MSI Z77 MPOWER motherboard, especially after that Ethernet worked for a 
time, and still does for Linux (System Rescue CD) and NetBSD.

Synth and pkgng in pkgsrc seem to be falling into desuetude; gcc6-aux is broken 
for NetBSD (stated in the Makefile).

I wonder also about the status of synth and possibly poudriere on DragonFlyBSD, 
idly curious in that I am more favorably impressed by Linux or Haiku, compared 
to DragonFlyBSD.

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?

[Matthew Seaman]

On 30/09/2017 18:06, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> John did state that he would continue to support synth. I can't say if he
> has continued to make contributions. In any case, only poudriere is
> available for maintaining ports in HEAD and I, for one, feel that it is
> simply unacceptable as it make FreeBSD unusable for those of us with only
> "small" systems where the weight poudriere simply can't be justified. (I
> have no system with other than SATA disk drives and, for my current needs,
> 1 TB of SATA on my development system and .5TB on my production system is
> adequate. Both systems are physically constrained in expansion capability,
> though otherwise easily meet my requirements.

I don't know what it is about poudriere that elicits this immediate
reaction that it is some sort of behemoth, trampling through disks by
the bushel, shouldering aside other processes to seize the best bits of
RAM and making CPUs cry with incessant demands for more cycles.

It's simply not so.

poudriere is really a very thin layer of shell scripts (and a few other
bits) over the general ports make system.  All of the really heavy
lifting is done by the compilers and so forth /that you'ld have to
invoke anyhow/.

In fact, I'd say that if your system is /at all/ capable of building the
ports you want, then it is perfectly capable of running poudriere to
help automate that.

Yes, the pkg builders used by the project are pretty chunky bits of kit.
 That's because they are building some 30,000 ports for about 8
different combinations of OS and CPU architecture with a cycle time of
less than two days.

If you're just building a few hundred ports for your own consumption,
then you don't need anything like that amount of resource.  I manage
perfectly well with a 6-year old Core2Duo with 8GB RAM and some 500GB
SSDs which cost me under £500 originally + about £200 for replacement
drives later on.  Which also runs a bunch of other stuff including my
mail system.

Cheers,

Matthew





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Mark Linimon]

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:06:17AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> It is unclear to me whether this was in regard to pots
> to the mailing lists or included private responses to
> the mail list discussions.

I know the former is true, not sure about the latter, but
he also used the bugs database in a fashion I can only
describe as caustic.  (That drove at least one person away
from the project.)

John is ably qualified technically.  If you agree with him
on such things as goals and design decisions, he is easy to
work with.  But my experience was that if you did not, you
were in for a long fight.

Obvious disclaimer: I was in the latter category.

People will have to come to their own conclusions.

mcl
___
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?

[Mark Linimon]

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:30:14PM -0700, Don Lewis wrote:
> it illustrates the problem of synth being the only real
> consumer of the ADA toolchain (which John also maintained)
> on FreeBSD.

It's only fair to point out that John did a great deal of work
on Ada on FreeBSD.  However ...

> Another issue is that synth is only available on x86 because that
> is what the toolchain limits it to

This, to me, is what always stuck in my craw.

I think John may have done some work on Ada on armv6 and/or aarch64
but I would have to go check to be sure.  There is a _possibility_
that with sufficient effort it could be made to work there.  But
AFAICT there was never any realistic chance it could work on
mips,
powerpc, or sparc64.

Now, you might claim those aren't deal-breakers, but IMVHO
not
having it working on both armv6 and aarch64, at production
quality,
*is* one -- those two need to be first-class citizens going forward
(e.g. for 12.0).

mcl
___
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?

[Mark Linimon]

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:06:17AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> as it makes FreeBSD unusable for those of us with only "small"
> systems where the weight of poudriere simply can't be justified.

I'm confused.  I have been using poudriere for several years
to build sparc64 packages.  2 * single core 1.5GHz CPU, 16GB
RAM, 2 * 72GB SCSI-3 disks.  Yes, it can get disk-bound,
especially I am not using ZFS.  No, it's not particularly
fast.  Yes, the machine is solely dedicated to this task.

I do believe poudriere will struggle on the smaller ARM
boards, solely due to the RAM limitations.  I intend to do
some further investigation.

mcl
___
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?

[Russell L. Carter]

On 09/30/17 10:06, Kevin Oberman wrote:

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Carmel NY  wrote:



[...]


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.


If minimizing the size of the physical machines you have access to is
a hard constraint, then a remote binary package linux distro would
definitely decrease your pain level.  However, the trade-off is
someone else selecting your package options.  (NB: I haven't used
arch) Indeed, my disposable travel laptop is debian.  Yet I try doing
as much real work as I can on FreeBSD because the packaging system is
world class flexible.  I *loved*, possibly too much, the ability to
nuke kerberos out of my world, both base OS and packages.  Try doing
that on debian.

But FreeBSD packaging flexibility comes at a cost, and that's mainly
cpu and memory when running poudriere.  In these days of giant &&
cheap && reasonably fast USB storage, I have a hard time giving
credence to disk usage complaints.  For FreeBSD's packaging
flexibility, I am willing to invest what in real dollars is a fraction
of what we were spending in the middle '90s just to get adequate
hardware to run FreeBSD.  It really doesn't take much.  I've given
away half a dozen boxes for free to people over the last 10 years,
that would support poudriere just fine (2-4 threads, 8-16GB) because
used white boxes seem to have nearly no retrievable value.  Not an
elegant physical package like a laptop, but *who cares*.

I am piping up because when I was restarting using FreeBSD after many
years (refugee from debian), you were an invaluable source of help to
me, and of course quite a few others.  It would be sad to lose your
positive contributions to the community over this issue.

All the best,
Russell


--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
___
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Jonathan Chen]

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?
-- 
Jonathan Chen 
___
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]

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.


You can use COMPAT11 on CURRENT as workaround for ADA issue, but this is 
a dead end anyway - synth doesn't look supported anymore, especially 
with FLAVORS on horizon.


___
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?

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> "small" systems where the weight poudriere simply can't be justified. (I
> have no system with other than SATA disk drives and, for my current needs,
> 1 TB of SATA on my development system and .5TB on my production system is
> adequate. Both systems are physically constrained in expansion capability,
> though otherwise easily meet my requirements.

My poudriere builder has 10 jails

103 10.3-RELEASE amd64
10i 10.3-RELEASE-p17 i386
11a 11.0-RELEASE-p1 amd64
11i 11.0-RELEASE-p1 i386
111 11.1-RELEASE amd64
cur 12.0-CURRENT 1200035
arm6 12.0-CURRENT r306902
p64 12.0-CURRENT r306902
93a 9.3-RELEASE-p48 amd64
93i 9.3-RELEASE-p48 i386

and it uses up approx. 3 GB of disk space.

The ports distfiles are using up approx. 16 GB of disk space.

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go !
___
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 30 Sep, Kevin Oberman wrote:

> John did state that he would continue to support synth. I can't say if he
> has continued to make contributions. In any case, only poudriere is
> available for maintaining ports in HEAD and I, for one, feel that it is
> simply unacceptable as it make FreeBSD unusable for those of us with only
> "small" systems where the weight poudriere simply can't be justified. (I
> have no system with other than SATA disk drives and, for my current needs,
> 1 TB of SATA on my development system and .5TB on my production system is
> adequate. Both systems are physically constrained in expansion capability,
> though otherwise easily meet my requirements.

1 TB should be plenty-o-room for poudriere in most cases.  The machine I
use for building packages only has a mirrored pair of 1TB Western
Digital Green drives that were purchased years ago for another project
where they were eventually replaced, so I just happened to have them
handy when I put my package builder together.  I use that box to build a
set of about 1800 ports for FreeBSD 10 i386,  FreeBSD 11 amd64, FreeBSD
11 i386, and FreeBSD 12 amd64.  There are some of the larger ports in
that set, like chromium, firefox, thunderbird, openoffice-4,
openoffice-devel, and libreoffice.  I also run the other supported
release / x86 combinations when I'm doing port testing.

%zpool list
NAMESIZE  ALLOC   FREE  EXPANDSZ   FRAGCAP  DEDUP  HEALTH  ALTROOT
zroot   888G   608G   280G -64%68%  1.00x  ONLINE  -

The biggest consumer of space is actually my collection of VM images
that get used when this machine isn't building packages.

My biggest constraint is CPU cycles.  I/O is generally not a problem
because I was able to max out RAM in this machine and use tmpfs for most
things in poudriere.

Centralizing port building like this allows me to continue to use some
really ancient and slow hardware, like my 2003 vintage laptop that only
has a 160 GB drive that is split between both Windows and FreeBSD and
1 GB of RAM.  It's still perfectly adequate for light use running a
browser and editing documents with one of the office products, but
trying to build those ports on it is totally out of the question.  I
also have a Via C3 machine with only 256 MB of RAM that I use as a
lightweight server and I maintain using the packages produced by
poudriere.  This also allows me to avoid bogging down my daily desktop
machine with port builds.  It's somewhat more modern, but a big batch of
port builds would probably make it really laggy for a long period of
time.

That said, if you only have one machine, synth is probably a better
choice.

The situation on 12.0 should be fixable by someone with the proper
skillset, but it illustrates the problem of synth being the only real
consumer the ADA toolchain (which John also maintained) on FreeBSD.
Basically we've got an important tool that had a single point of
failure, and even without the the politics, we'd be in the same
situation if John had been run over by a bus.  By contrast, poudriere
is mostly shell scripts, which makes me shudder for totally different
reasons.

Another issue is that synth is only available on x86 because that what
the toolchain limits it to, so that leaves the our other architectures
out in the cold.


___
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 Sat, 30 Sep 2017 10:06:17 -0700, Kevin Oberman stated:

>On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Carmel NY  wrote:
>
>>
>> Excuse my ignorance, but why was John Marino exiled?
>>
>>  
>Not to state any opinion of my own, but John had his commit bit pulled
>after a long mail dialog about the utility of synth as a complete
>replacement for all older port updating tools save poudriere. It was
>claimed that John's messages were abusive and in violation of the FreeBSD
>"Code of Conduct". It is unclear to me whether this was in regard to pots
>to the mailing lists or included private responses to the mail list
>discussions.
>
>Core reviewed the messages and agreed that they were unacceptable. John
>disagreed and declined to retract his statements, so Core voted to withdraw
>his commit bit.
>
>The public details are available in the mail archives.
>
>John did state that he would continue to support synth. I can't say if he
>has continued to make contributions. In any case, only poudriere is
>available for maintaining ports in HEAD and I, for one, feel that it is
>simply unacceptable as it make FreeBSD unusable for those of us with only
>"small" systems where the weight poudriere simply can't be justified. (I
>have no system with other than SATA disk drives and, for my current needs,
>1 TB of SATA on my development system and .5TB on my production system is
>adequate. Both systems are physically constrained in expansion capability,
>though otherwise easily meet my requirements.
>
>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.

I could not agree more. If this matter is not resolved before FBSD 12 is
released, I will have to start looking for a replacement for FBSD.

-- 
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Kevin Oberman]

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Carmel NY  wrote:

>
> Excuse my ignorance, but why was John Marino exiled?
>
>
Not to state any opinion of my own, but John had his commit bit pulled
after a long mail dialog about the utility of synth as a complete
replacement for all older port updating tools save poudriere. It was
claimed that John's messages were abusive and in violation of the FreeBSD
"Code of Conduct". It is unclear to me whether this was in regard to pots
to the mailing lists or included private responses to the mail list
discussions.

Core reviewed the messages and agreed that they were unacceptable. John
disagreed and declined to retract his statements, so Core voted to withdraw
his commit bit.

The public details are available in the mail archives.

John did state that he would continue to support synth. I can't say if he
has continued to make contributions. In any case, only poudriere is
available for maintaining ports in HEAD and I, for one, feel that it is
simply unacceptable as it make FreeBSD unusable for those of us with only
"small" systems where the weight poudriere simply can't be justified. (I
have no system with other than SATA disk drives and, for my current needs,
1 TB of SATA on my development system and .5TB on my production system is
adequate. Both systems are physically constrained in expansion capability,
though otherwise easily meet my requirements.

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.
--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
___
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?

[RW via freebsd-ports]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 10:34:11 +
Carmel NY wrote:


> I have just the opposite experience. With "portupgrade" I was getting
> all too many dependencies installed that I had no use for. I
> personally appreciate synth's finer-grain installation philosophy.

But presumably that's just portupgrade installing build dependencies
and not removing them automatically.  
___
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 Sat, 30 Sep 2017 09:27:40 +, Thomas Mueller stated:

>from Chris H:
>
>> FWIW I loved portmaster, but quickly found that by choosing it, I was
>> *instantly* at odds with a large majority of the FreeBSD crowd.
>> Eventually, I experimented with other choices, and finally landed on
>> ports-mgmt/synth, and never looked back. Like Carmel, I found some aspects
>> un-intuitive. But after figuring them out. I was hooked. John Marino did
>> a wonderful job on this, and is very helpful.  
>
>On one computer (motherboard MSI Z68MA-ED55(B3)), synth works great, as long
>as I avoid the options dialog and put the options
>in /usr/local/etc/synth/LiveSystem-make.conf

I have learned to put needed options in the "LiveSystem-make.conf" file. I
don't consider it a hindrance although others might.

>But there is the annoyance that many useful dependencies are not installed
>unless I type the command to install those already-built packages.

I have just the opposite experience. With "portupgrade" I was getting all too
many dependencies installed that I had no use for. I personally appreciate
synth's finer-grain installation philosophy. Perhaps an option to install
"ALL" dependencies could be added to synth's list of options. It is above my
pay grade.

>On the other computer, motherboard MSI Z77 MPOWER, same FreeBSD version,
>11.1-STABLE, synth fails most of the time and usually crashes.

Sorry, but I don't know enough about mother boards to be of any help to you
here. What is the error message and what does the log say about it?

>I believe John Marino is unfortunately banished from FreeBSD but might still
>be active with DragonFlyBSD.

Excuse my ignorance, but why was John Marino exiled?

>from Matt Smith:
>
>> I agree. Portmaster was useful for many years but these days it is being
>> left behind. The expectation is that ports are built in a clean room
>> environment and portmaster does not provide that. I used synth for several
>> months and it is a great tool. It works fine, but my problem with it is
>> that the developer was forced out of FreeBSD and it needs an ada compiler.  
>
>> I think on FreeBSD 12 the ada compiler is broken isn’t it? Meaning synth
>> will break. For this reason I switched to poudriere and that works fine for
>> me. As that is the tool used by the pkg builders themselves I know it will
>> work.  

I can see this as an excellent excuse NOT to update to the FreeBSD 12 when it
is officially released.
 
>> For example we are shortly getting flavors support in the ports tree. I
>> think the author of synth has already said he is not going to support this
>> whereas poudriere will straight away.  
>
>Building synth requires gcc6-aux, but gcc5-aux and gcc6-aux would not build
>following the introduction of ino64.
>
>I don't know if that has been fixed.
>
>John Marino attempted to port synth to NetBSD with pkgsrc, but last time I
>looked, gcc6-aux is broken on NetBSD, Makefile says so.
>
>Tom
>

-- 
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Thomas Mueller]

from Chris H:

> FWIW I loved portmaster, but quickly found that by choosing it, I was
> *instantly* at odds with a large majority of the FreeBSD crowd.
> Eventually, I experimented with other choices, and finally landed on
> ports-mgmt/synth, and never looked back. Like Carmel, I found some aspects
> un-intuitive. But after figuring them out. I was hooked. John Marino did
> a wonderful job on this, and is very helpful.

On one computer (motherboard MSI Z68MA-ED55(B3)), synth works great, as long as 
I avoid the options dialog and put the options in 
/usr/local/etc/synth/LiveSystem-make.conf

But there is the annoyance that many useful dependencies are not installed 
unless I type the command to install those already-built packages.

On the other computer, motherboard MSI Z77 MPOWER, same FreeBSD version, 
11.1-STABLE, synth fails most of the time and usually crashes.

I believe John Marino is unfortunately banished from FreeBSD but might still be 
active with DragonFlyBSD.

from Matt Smith:

> I agree. Portmaster was useful for many years but these days it is being left
> behind. The expectation is that ports are built in a clean room environment
> and portmaster does not provide that. I used synth for several months and it
> is a great tool. It works fine, but my problem with it is that the developer
> was forced out of FreeBSD and it needs an ada compiler.

> I think on FreeBSD 12 the ada compiler is broken isn’t it? Meaning synth 
> will
> break. For this reason I switched to poudriere and that works fine for me. As
> that is the tool used by the pkg builders themselves I know it will work.

> For example we are shortly getting flavors support in the ports tree. I think
> the author of synth has already said he is not going to support this whereas
> poudriere will straight away.

Building synth requires gcc6-aux, but gcc5-aux and gcc6-aux would not build 
following the introduction of ino64.

I don't know if that has been fixed.

John Marino attempted to port synth to NetBSD with pkgsrc, but last time I 
looked, gcc6-aux is broken on NetBSD, Makefile says so.

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?

[Marco Beishuizen]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, the wise Thomas Mueller wrote:


What is the current status of portupgrade and portmaster?

I haven't used portupgrade in some time, but what about portmaster?


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


--
I can feel for her because, although I have never been an Alaskan
prostitute dancing on the bar in a spangled dress, I still get very
bored with washing and ironing and dishwashing and cooking day after
relentless day.
-- Betty MacDonald
___
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 Sep 29 20:23, Kurt Jaeger wrote:

Hi!


What is one officially supposed to use to build and upgrade
packages from source?


I doubt that we already have a 'official' consensus, but
buildung using poudriere, while expensive from the
hardware resource point of view, looks to me as the most stable
way to do it.



I agree. Portmaster was useful for many years but these days it is being 
left behind. The expectation is that ports are built in a clean room 
environment and portmaster does not provide that. I used synth for 
several months and it is a great tool. It works fine, but my problem 
with it is that the developer was forced out of FreeBSD and it needs an 
ada compiler.


I think on FreeBSD 12 the ada compiler is broken isn’t it? Meaning synth 
will break. For this reason I switched to poudriere and that works fine 
for me. As that is the tool used by the pkg builders themselves I know 
it will work.


For example we are shortly getting flavors support in the ports tree. I 
think the author of synth has already said he is not going to support 
this whereas poudriere will straight away.


--
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?

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> What is one officially supposed to use to build and upgrade
> packages from source?

I doubt that we already have a 'official' consensus, but
buildung using poudriere, while expensive from the
hardware resource point of view, looks to me as the most stable
way to do it.

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go !
___
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 Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:38:36 + Carmel NY <carmel...@outlook.com> wrote

> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:00:02 +, Thomas Mueller stated:
> 
> >Excerpt from Jan Beich:
> >
> >> Why did portupgrade skip rebuilding print/harfbuzz-icu before building
> >> editors/libreoffice? The dependency trees of most desktop applications
> >> are so complex that the build falls apart if the upgrade tools aren't
> >> robust enough e.g., ignore MOVED or PORTREVISION bumps.  
> > 
> >> In short, this is a reminder portmaster/portupgrade are NOT supported.
> >> Users are on their own debugging such issues.  
> >
> >What is the current status of portupgrade and portmaster?
> >
> >I haven't used portupgrade in some time, but what about portmaster?
> >
> >What is one officially supposed to use to build and upgrade packages from
> >source?
> >
> >Synth, poudriere, any others?
> >
> >Tom
> 
> Years ago, I was a strong supporter of "portmanager". It just worked when
> others failed. They when its support wained, I started using "portupgrade". I
> tried "portmaster", but it just failed way to often for my tastes.
> However, after updating to FreeBSD-11, I have used "synth" exclusively. It is
> fast, through and hasn't failed me yet. It took me a while to understand all
> of its nuances, like how to use a "make.conf" file with it; however, it was
> worth it. I would highly recommend it.

FWIW I loved portmaster, but quickly found that by choosing it, I was
*instantly* at odds with a large majority of the FreeBSD crowd.
Eventually, I experimented with other choices, and finally landed on
ports-mgmt/synth, and never looked back. Like Carmel, I found some aspects 
un-intuitive. But after figuring them out. I was hooked. John Marino did
a wonderful job on this, and is very helpful.

--Chris
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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"


___
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 Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:00:02 +, Thomas Mueller stated:

>Excerpt from Jan Beich:
>
>> Why did portupgrade skip rebuilding print/harfbuzz-icu before building
>> editors/libreoffice? The dependency trees of most desktop applications
>> are so complex that the build falls apart if the upgrade tools aren't
>> robust enough e.g., ignore MOVED or PORTREVISION bumps.  
> 
>> In short, this is a reminder portmaster/portupgrade are NOT supported.
>> Users are on their own debugging such issues.  
>
>What is the current status of portupgrade and portmaster?
>
>I haven't used portupgrade in some time, but what about portmaster?
>
>What is one officially supposed to use to build and upgrade packages from
>source?
>
>Synth, poudriere, any others?
>
>Tom

Years ago, I was a strong supporter of "portmanager". It just worked when
others failed. They when its support wained, I started using "portupgrade". I
tried "portmaster", but it just failed way to often for my tastes.
However, after updating to FreeBSD-11, I have used "synth" exclusively. It is
fast, through and hasn't failed me yet. It took me a while to understand all
of its nuances, like how to use a "make.conf" file with it; however, it was
worth it. I would highly recommend it.


-- 
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: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Dave Cottlehuber]

> What is the current status of portupgrade and portmaster?
> 
> I haven't used portupgrade in some time, but what about portmaster?
> 
> What is one officially supposed to use to build and upgrade packages from
> source?

In the interests of having some numbers other than email list replies I
threw up a straw poll:

https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/62633/

pick your poison and I'll report back in a week. RT/posts welcomed to
spread the word.

A+
Dave
___
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"

Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Thomas Mueller]

Excerpt from Jan Beich:

> Why did portupgrade skip rebuilding print/harfbuzz-icu before building
> editors/libreoffice? The dependency trees of most desktop applications
> are so complex that the build falls apart if the upgrade tools aren't
> robust enough e.g., ignore MOVED or PORTREVISION bumps.
 
> In short, this is a reminder portmaster/portupgrade are NOT supported.
> Users are on their own debugging such issues.

What is the current status of portupgrade and portmaster?

I haven't used portupgrade in some time, but what about portmaster?

What is one officially supposed to use to build and upgrade packages from 
source?

Synth, poudriere, any others?

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"