Re: Status of synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[Shane Ambler]

On 16/02/2017 14:20, Thomas Mueller wrote:



For every build - /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf



OPTIONS_SET= OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS SIMD PGSQL IPV6 editors_vim_SET=
CSCOPE X11 GTK3 PYTHON



You can also get more specific by using -



/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/--make.conf
/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/--make.conf
/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/---make.conf




Shane Ambler


Is there any way to do this options preconfiguring not using
poudriere?

One good thing about NetBSD pkgsrc, also Gentoo portage, is being
able to set options by package or for all packages in /etc/make.conf
or mk.conf .

Is there a good way to do this in FreeBSD prior to running synth?



Any options you setup for poudriere work just the same when placed in
/etc/make.conf - poudriere copies the above files into /etc/make.conf in
the build environment.

You can define BATCH in your make.conf to stop config dialogs
- poudriere adds BATCH=yes to the make.conf of each build jail.

synth also has it's own files in /usr/local/etc/synth that it will use.
See man synth


--
FreeBSD - the place to B...Software Developing

Shane Ambler
___
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 synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[Don Lewis]

On 16 Feb, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> 
>> For every build -
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf
> 
>> OPTIONS_SET= OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS SIMD PGSQL IPV6
>> editors_vim_SET= CSCOPE X11 GTK3 PYTHON

Yeah, I really like this a lot more than going through all the config
screens.  Back when I used portupgrade, I found that it was too easy to
accidentally set some option for a port to a non-default value where it
would persist forever.  It was also hard to make sure that desired
non-default option values were set consistently for all ports.  For
instance if you want to enable CUPS, you'd have to do it individually
for all the ports that have a CUPS option.  It was also really tedious
going through a bunch of config screens for every portupgrade run
because typically there were a bunch of ports that had new options or
new default option values.  Multiply this by N because I had several
different FreeBSD branch and arch combos.  The downside is that you
won't find out about new and interesting option settings, but with 1000+
ports all the config screens just turned into noise for me.

>> You can also get more specific by using -
> 
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/--make.conf
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/--make.conf
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/---make.conf
> 
> 
>> Shane Ambler
> 
> Is there any way to do this options preconfiguring not using poudriere?
> 
> One good thing about NetBSD pkgsrc, also Gentoo portage, is being able
> to set options by package or for all packages in /etc/make.conf or
> mk.conf .
> 
> Is there a good way to do this in FreeBSD prior to running synth?
> 
> I found it very disconcerting to do a massive portupgrade (using
> portupgrade), going to bed or otherwise away from the computer, and
> then finding it stopped at a dialog screen.

Yeah, been there and is sucked.  My workaround for this was to run
"portupgrade -aFc".  That gets through all the config screens fairly
quickly and also makes sure that all the distfiles are fetchable.  The
latter avoids the problem of a portupgrade run failing halfway through
due to a transient network problem.

My portupgrade runs eventually got to be two to three day marathons and
it sucked when things went sideways 15 minutes after going to bed due to
a build problem with a port or whatever.  Then a night's worth of CPU
time would be wasted until I could get back to the computer to see what
went wrong and start over from scratch.  It was especially frustrating
if a port failed to build, or the system crashed, or the power failed
and I was doing a "portupgrade -rf" run because there was no way to know
what ports got rebuilt, so I would have to restart the portupgrade run
from scratch.  In the meantime the system was stuck in some sort of
broken, half-upgraded state.  Not having a usable desktop for multiple
days was a real problem, which meant that I could only upgrade ports
infrequently, when I new in advance that there was nothing that would
require me to use the machine.

For me, poudriere (in combination with the practice of bumping the
PORTREVISION of dependent ports when appropriate) has been a vast
improvement.  Poudriere on a multicore machine can build multiple
ports in parallel, which is a good thing since it defaults to rebuilding
all dependencies of any port that is upgraded.  If there is a system
crash or power failure, it will pick up pretty much where it left off
and only the in-progress port builds need to start from scratch, not the
entire run.  I can also build packages for all of my machines on my
biggest and fastest machine instead of trying to compile everything on
some of my really old and slow hardware.  The pkg upgrade runs on the
individual machines only take a few minutes and it is very unlikely that
I'll get a machine into some sort of broken and half upgraded state.

> I ran make config-recursive many times, several times on the same port
> to get what was missed on the first or previous make config-recursive.
> 
> I am not familiar with the details on planned upgrades to the ports
> framework and how they will affect usability of portmaster, but
> remember some users swore by portmanager during the pkg_* days, prior
> to pkgng.
> 
> Portmanager could not be made compatible with pkgng and was
> subsequently dropped from ports/ports-mgmt.
> 
> 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 synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[Jonathan Chen]

On 16 February 2017 at 16:50, Thomas Mueller  wrote:
>
>> For every build -
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf
>
>> OPTIONS_SET= OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS SIMD PGSQL IPV6
>> editors_vim_SET= CSCOPE X11 GTK3 PYTHON
>
>> You can also get more specific by using -
>
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/--make.conf
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/--make.conf
>> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/---make.conf
>
>
>> Shane Ambler
>
> Is there any way to do this options preconfiguring not using poudriere?
>
> One good thing about NetBSD pkgsrc, also Gentoo portage, is being able to set 
> options by package or for all packages in /etc/make.conf or mk.conf .
>
> Is there a good way to do this in FreeBSD prior to running synth?

You can set up all the port options to use with synth in
/usr/local/etc/synth/LiveSystem-make.conf,
eg:

devel_git_UNSET= CONTRIB CVS GITWEB P4 PERL SEND_EMAIL
print_gutenprint_SET=CUPS


Cheers.
-- 
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 synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[Thomas Mueller]

> For every build -
> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf

> OPTIONS_SET= OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS SIMD PGSQL IPV6
> editors_vim_SET= CSCOPE X11 GTK3 PYTHON

> You can also get more specific by using -

> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/--make.conf
> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/--make.conf
> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/---make.conf


> Shane Ambler

Is there any way to do this options preconfiguring not using poudriere?

One good thing about NetBSD pkgsrc, also Gentoo portage, is being able to set 
options by package or for all packages in /etc/make.conf or mk.conf .

Is there a good way to do this in FreeBSD prior to running synth?

I found it very disconcerting to do a massive portupgrade (using portupgrade), 
going to bed or otherwise away from the computer, and then finding it stopped 
at a dialog screen.

I ran make config-recursive many times, several times on the same port to get 
what was missed on the first or previous make config-recursive.

I am not familiar with the details on planned upgrades to the ports framework 
and how they will affect usability of portmaster, but remember some users swore 
by portmanager during the pkg_* days, prior to pkgng.

Portmanager could not be made compatible with pkgng and was subsequently 
dropped from ports/ports-mgmt.

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 synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[Shane Ambler]

On 16/02/2017 05:28, Adam Weinberger wrote:

On 15 Feb, 2017, at 11:47, abi  wrote:






On 15.02.2017 18:00, Adam Weinberger wrote:

On 15 Feb, 2017, at 2:26, Thomas Mueller 
wrote:

Expulsion of John Marino was a shocker to me, caught me by
surprise.

Now my question is what is the status of synth?

Should I switch from portmaster to synth?

If synth is deprecated or dropped, after I switch from
portmaster to synth, then I have to switch back, and this would
be a monster mess of extra work.

Not to be inflammatory here, just want to know where I/we stand
and don't want to go too far off course updating my ports.


I don't recommend portmaster for anybody. It's unmaintained, it
already causes headaches on upgrades, and even though it works
now, it is unlikely to keep working as the ports tree evolves.


This is FUD. Yes, portmaster can be less maintained, but it works
without observable issues, at least I don't see any problems with
it on my systems. synth and poudriere lacks the ability to set and
maintain port options recursively, eliminating any practical (from
user perspective, not developer) use of such software stand alone.


Sure it does.

poudriere options -j jailname editors/vim

Sets options recursively.

Not seeing any problems with it right now isn't the point of my
message. The point is that portmaster WILL break when new features
(currently in progress) are added to the ports build system, and
being unmaintained, there's no guarantees that it will ever unbreak.


I used to do that sort thing in tinderbox, with poudriere and the new
options framework I prefer to set my options in make.conf.

For every build -
/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf

OPTIONS_SET= OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS SIMD PGSQL IPV6
editors_vim_SET= CSCOPE X11 GTK3 PYTHON

You can also get more specific by using -

/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/-make.conf
/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/--make.conf
/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/--make.conf
/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/---make.conf


--
FreeBSD - the place to B...Software Developing

Shane Ambler

___
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 synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 15 Feb, 2017, at 12:17, abi  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 15.02.2017 21:58, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>>> On 15 Feb, 2017, at 11:47, abi  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 15.02.2017 18:00, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 2017, at 2:26, Thomas Mueller  wrote:
> 
> Expulsion of John Marino was a shocker to me, caught me by surprise.
> 
> Now my question is what is the status of synth?
> 
> Should I switch from portmaster to synth?
> 
> If synth is deprecated or dropped, after I switch from portmaster to 
> synth, then I have to switch back, and this would be a monster mess of 
> extra work.
> 
> Not to be inflammatory here, just want to know where I/we stand and don't 
> want to go too far off course updating my ports.
 
 I don't recommend portmaster for anybody. It's unmaintained, it already 
 causes headaches on upgrades, and even though it works now, it is unlikely 
 to keep working as the ports tree evolves.
>>> 
>>> This is FUD. Yes, portmaster can be less maintained, but it works without 
>>> observable issues, at least I don't see any problems with it on my systems. 
>>> synth and poudriere lacks the ability to set and maintain port options 
>>> recursively, eliminating any practical (from user perspective, not 
>>> developer) use of such software stand alone.
>> 
>> Sure it does.
>> 
>> poudriere options -j jailname editors/vim
>> 
>> Sets options recursively.
>> 
>> Not seeing any problems with it right now isn't the point of my message. The 
>> point is that portmaster WILL break when new features (currently in 
>> progress) are added to the ports build system, and being unmaintained, 
>> there's no guarantees that it will ever unbreak.
>> 
> 
> Poudriere can't be considered as an option for everyone due to it's 
> connection to jails, synth can't set options recursively, however it's 
> extremely simple to use.
> 
> According to current port tree, portmaster has maintainer and it's simple 
> enough to be fixed by virtually everyone.
> 
> Can you provide link to new features? Never saw that port tree has some 
> drastically changes.

You're right, jails do require more setup, drive space, and complexity (not to 
mention being quite slow on UFS). But at the end of the day, jails are a better 
paradigm for building ports. Most failures these days come from the environment 
influencing the build, or upgrade problems rebuilding ports when old ports stop 
working haphazardly. Best effort is taken to fix these problems, but 
maintainers and committers can't predict every setup possibility; the general 
target is making sure that they build in a pristine environment, meaning 
poudriere.

https://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=134825+0+archive/2016/freebsd-ports/20161225.freebsd-ports
 for the new features I was referring to.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Status of synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[abi]

On 15.02.2017 21:58, Adam Weinberger wrote:

On 15 Feb, 2017, at 11:47, abi  wrote:



On 15.02.2017 18:00, Adam Weinberger wrote:

On 15 Feb, 2017, at 2:26, Thomas Mueller  wrote:

Expulsion of John Marino was a shocker to me, caught me by surprise.

Now my question is what is the status of synth?

Should I switch from portmaster to synth?

If synth is deprecated or dropped, after I switch from portmaster to synth, 
then I have to switch back, and this would be a monster mess of extra work.

Not to be inflammatory here, just want to know where I/we stand and don't want 
to go too far off course updating my ports.


I don't recommend portmaster for anybody. It's unmaintained, it already causes 
headaches on upgrades, and even though it works now, it is unlikely to keep 
working as the ports tree evolves.


This is FUD. Yes, portmaster can be less maintained, but it works without 
observable issues, at least I don't see any problems with it on my systems. 
synth and poudriere lacks the ability to set and maintain port options 
recursively, eliminating any practical (from user perspective, not developer) 
use of such software stand alone.


Sure it does.

poudriere options -j jailname editors/vim

Sets options recursively.

Not seeing any problems with it right now isn't the point of my message. The 
point is that portmaster WILL break when new features (currently in progress) 
are added to the ports build system, and being unmaintained, there's no 
guarantees that it will ever unbreak.



Poudriere can't be considered as an option for everyone due to it's 
connection to jails, synth can't set options recursively, however it's 
extremely simple to use.


According to current port tree, portmaster has maintainer and it's 
simple enough to be fixed by virtually everyone.


Can you provide link to new features? Never saw that port tree has some 
drastically changes.

___
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 synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 15 Feb, 2017, at 11:47, abi  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 15.02.2017 18:00, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>>> On 15 Feb, 2017, at 2:26, Thomas Mueller  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Expulsion of John Marino was a shocker to me, caught me by surprise.
>>> 
>>> Now my question is what is the status of synth?
>>> 
>>> Should I switch from portmaster to synth?
>>> 
>>> If synth is deprecated or dropped, after I switch from portmaster to synth, 
>>> then I have to switch back, and this would be a monster mess of extra work.
>>> 
>>> Not to be inflammatory here, just want to know where I/we stand and don't 
>>> want to go too far off course updating my ports.
>> 
>> I don't recommend portmaster for anybody. It's unmaintained, it already 
>> causes headaches on upgrades, and even though it works now, it is unlikely 
>> to keep working as the ports tree evolves.
> 
> This is FUD. Yes, portmaster can be less maintained, but it works without 
> observable issues, at least I don't see any problems with it on my systems. 
> synth and poudriere lacks the ability to set and maintain port options 
> recursively, eliminating any practical (from user perspective, not developer) 
> use of such software stand alone.

Sure it does.

poudriere options -j jailname editors/vim

Sets options recursively.

Not seeing any problems with it right now isn't the point of my message. The 
point is that portmaster WILL break when new features (currently in progress) 
are added to the ports build system, and being unmaintained, there's no 
guarantees that it will ever unbreak.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Status of synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[abi]

On 15.02.2017 18:00, Adam Weinberger wrote:

On 15 Feb, 2017, at 2:26, Thomas Mueller  wrote:

Expulsion of John Marino was a shocker to me, caught me by surprise.

Now my question is what is the status of synth?

Should I switch from portmaster to synth?

If synth is deprecated or dropped, after I switch from portmaster to synth, 
then I have to switch back, and this would be a monster mess of extra work.

Not to be inflammatory here, just want to know where I/we stand and don't want 
to go too far off course updating my ports.


I don't recommend portmaster for anybody. It's unmaintained, it already causes 
headaches on upgrades, and even though it works now, it is unlikely to keep 
working as the ports tree evolves.


This is FUD. Yes, portmaster can be less maintained, but it works 
without observable issues, at least I don't see any problems with it on 
my systems. synth and poudriere lacks the ability to set and maintain 
port options recursively, eliminating any practical (from user 
perspective, not developer) use of such software stand alone.


___
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 synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 15 Feb, 2017, at 2:26, Thomas Mueller  wrote:
> 
> Expulsion of John Marino was a shocker to me, caught me by surprise.
> 
> Now my question is what is the status of synth?
> 
> Should I switch from portmaster to synth?
> 
> If synth is deprecated or dropped, after I switch from portmaster to synth, 
> then I have to switch back, and this would be a monster mess of extra work.
> 
> Not to be inflammatory here, just want to know where I/we stand and don't 
> want to go too far off course updating my ports.

I don't recommend portmaster for anybody. It's unmaintained, it already causes 
headaches on upgrades, and even though it works now, it is unlikely to keep 
working as the ports tree evolves.

You should switch to poudriere or Synth. Poudriere is what most of the 
committers use, and it's what all the builder machines use. It's simple to set 
up, and is the reference ports tool. Synth is a great builder too, and AFAIK 
John is still very actively developing it.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Status of synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[Matthieu Volat]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:26:18 +
"Thomas Mueller"  wrote:

> Expulsion of John Marino was a shocker to me, caught me by surprise.
> 
> Now my question is what is the status of synth?
> 
> Should I switch from portmaster to synth?
> 
> If synth is deprecated or dropped, after I switch from portmaster to synth, 
> then I have to switch back, and this would be a monster mess of extra work.
> 
> Not to be inflammatory here, just want to know where I/we stand and don't 
> want to go too far off course updating my ports.
> 
> 
> Tom
> 


To my knowledge (ie reading freebsd-ports@), portmaster is not deprecated and 
you are not forced to switch unless you want to use different functionnality 
only provided by other tools...


-- Matthieu Volat 


pgp9qSjbW6Zig.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Status of synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[abi]

15.02.2017 12:26, Thomas Mueller пишет:

Expulsion of John Marino was a shocker to me, caught me by surprise.

Now my question is what is the status of synth?

Should I switch from portmaster to synth?

If synth is deprecated or dropped, after I switch from portmaster to synth, 
then I have to switch back, and this would be a monster mess of extra work.

Not to be inflammatory here, just want to know where I/we stand and don't want 
to go too far off course updating my ports.


Tom


John said that he will continue to develop synth and new maintainer has 
assigned already.



___
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 synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[Lars Engels]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 09:26:18AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Expulsion of John Marino was a shocker to me, caught me by surprise.
> 
> Now my question is what is the status of synth?
> 
> Should I switch from portmaster to synth?
> 
> If synth is deprecated or dropped, after I switch from portmaster to
> synth, then I have to switch back, and this would be a monster mess of
> extra work.
> 
> Not to be inflammatory here, just want to know where I/we stand and
> don't want to go too far off course updating my ports.
> 

Hi Tom,

John wants to keep on working on synth:

https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/59705/


pgprtJvQh3ySm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Status of synth following expulsion of John Marino?

[Thomas Mueller]

Expulsion of John Marino was a shocker to me, caught me by surprise.

Now my question is what is the status of synth?

Should I switch from portmaster to synth?

If synth is deprecated or dropped, after I switch from portmaster to synth, 
then I have to switch back, and this would be a monster mess of extra work.

Not to be inflammatory here, just want to know where I/we stand and don't want 
to go too far off course updating my ports.


Tom

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"