Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Thomas Mueller]

from Stari Karp:

> On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 06:24 -0400, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 06:10 -0400, Stari Karp wrote:
> > > Looks like the new portmaster is coming but what is about Synth? I am
> > > the user of Synth and I like to know what the FreeBSD leaders decided, 
> > > please.

> > The "FreeBSD leaders," in their infinite wisdom, decided to can John
> > Marino. Synth development will likely go on, geared towards Dragonfly.
> > Whether it will support future FreeBSD ports enhancements is anyone's
> > guess. Whether gcc6-aux will ever be fixed for 12-CURRENT and 64 bit
> > inodes is also anyone's guess.

> > Sadly, it is/
> > was the best option for users looking to migrate to a "modern" tool for
> > whom poudriere was too much.

> I did install Dragonfly too and for my needs is very good. I am buying
> a new ssd drive and I will installed os from scratch. And I knew what
> happened with John Marino.

One problem I had with DragonFlyBSD was that I couldn't mount/read a NetBSD or 
FreeBSD partition, and FreeBSD and NetBSD couldn't mount/read a DragonFly 
partition.

That was on the DragonFly boot image written to USB stick, last version was 
somewhere before 4.4.

Latest experience (4.4.x) was that DragonFly installation boot image, written 
to USB stick, hung on boot.

I checked ports-mgmt/synth/Makefile for DPorts on github.com and see 

MAINTAINER= ericturgeon@gmail.com

but for pkgsrc-synth/pkgtools/synth in (NetBSD) pkgsrc,

MAINTAINER= dr...@marino.st
HOMEPAGE=   https://github.com/jrmarino/synth

I was not behind the scenes to judge who was right and who was wrong in the 
John Marino debacle.

It seems nobody in NetBSD, except John Marino, uses pkg or synth with pkgsrc, 
so if I try and need help, there would be no community to help.

64-bit inodes are not the only snag in 12-CURRENT.  Remember pkgbase, 
originally planned for 11.0-RELEASE?

I'll have to see what I can do with 11-STABLE and let 12-CURRENT wait on hold.

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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Dewayne Geraghty]

Your use case is very similar to others that manage servers, particularly
on behalf of others.  We also rebuilt nightly , if any vulnerabilities were
discovered we'd test and push to clients' servers.
 :)
Cheers.
-- 
*Disclaimer:* *As implied by email protocols, the information in this
message is not confidential. Any intermediary or recipient may inspect,
modify (add), copy, forward, reply to, delete, or filter email for any
purpose unless said parties are otherwise obligated.  Nothing in this
message may be legally binding without cryptographic evidence of its
integrity and/or confidentiality.*
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Stari Karp]

On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 06:24 -0400, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 06:10 -0400, Stari Karp wrote:
> > Looks like the new portmaster is coming but what is about Synth? I
> > am
> > the user of Synth and I like to know what the FreeBSD leaders
> > decided,
> > please.
> > 
> 
> The "FreeBSD leaders," in their infinite wisdom, decided to can John
> Marino. Synth development will likely go on, geared towards
> Dragonfly.
> Whether it will support future FreeBSD ports enhancements is anyone's
> guess. Whether gcc6-aux will ever be fixed for 12-CURRENT and 64 bit
> inodes is also anyone's guess.
> 
> Sadly, it is/
> was the best option for users looking to migrate to a "modern" tool
> for
> whom poudriere was too much.
> 

I did install Dragonfly too and for my needs is very good. I am buying
a new ssd drive and I will installed os from scratch. And I knew what
happened with John Marino. 

___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[David Wolfskill]

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:29:40PM +0200, Thierry Thomas wrote:
> ...
> But I have a naive question: if pkg supports flavours, and binary
> packages are built for your sets of options, is portmaster still
> relevant?
> 

Well, that depends... e.g., on one's set of requirements (and how they
are weighted).

In my own case, I believe portmaster is still relevant.  That said, I
doubt that many would have my particular set of requirements -- and that
of the few who might, very few would weight them at all similarly.

To provide a bit of context: On the systems where I use portmaster, I
also maintain private mirrors of the FreeBSD SVN repositories, which are
updated (only) overnight.  On a daily basis (on these machines -- one of
which is a designated "build machine"; the other is my laptop) I:
* Update the /usr/ports working copy.
* Update the stable/11 /usr/src working copy.
* Perform a src-based update to stable/11 (& reboot).
* While that is running, fetch the distfiles I'll be needing later
  (e.g. "portmaster -aF").
* Update all installed ports (e.g., "portmaster -ad").
* Update the "head" slice's /usr/src working copy.
* Reboot to the "head" slice.
* Perform a src-based update to head (& reboot).
* For the build machine, set the default boot slice to stable/11 & poweroff;
  for the laptop, reboot to stable/11, then use it for the rest of the day.

Please note that I am NOT recommending any of this to anyone else.

Peace,
david
-- 
David H. Wolfskill  da...@catwhisker.org
Looking forward to telling Mr. Trump: "You're fired!"

See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Torsten Zuehlsdorff]

On 02.06.2017 16:29, Thierry Thomas wrote:

Le jeu.  1 juin 17 à 15:45:43 +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff 

  écrivait :


Just as a short note: there is a complete rewrite of portmaster ongoing.
Since its a beast and everything else is very hard there is no public
evidence in case of failure. ;) Until now.


I've been using portupgrade and then portmaster for a long time. I can
understand the need for such tools when you have to build ports with
non-default options.

But I have a naive question: if pkg supports flavours, and binary
packages are built for your sets of options, is portmaster still
relevant?


No, but most portmaster user do not have the default set of options. And 
flavours do not change the options of binary packages - as far as i 
understand. The should solve problems like having multiple ports of the 
same programm but for php 5.6, 7.0 and 7.1 at the same time. Or for 
different python or ruby versions.


Greetings,
Torsten
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Thierry Thomas]

Le jeu.  1 juin 17 à 15:45:43 +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff 

 écrivait :

> Just as a short note: there is a complete rewrite of portmaster ongoing. 
> Since its a beast and everything else is very hard there is no public 
> evidence in case of failure. ;) Until now.

I've been using portupgrade and then portmaster for a long time. I can
understand the need for such tools when you have to build ports with
non-default options.

But I have a naive question: if pkg supports flavours, and binary
packages are built for your sets of options, is portmaster still
relevant?
-- 
Th. Thomas.
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[George Mitchell]

On 06/02/17 06:24, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> [...]
> Sadly, it is/
> was the best option for users looking to migrate to a "modern" tool for
> whom poudriere was too much.
> 

Meaning no disrespect to anyone who makes positive contributions to
the FreeBSD project, let's not forget that synth's dependence on Ada
is not to be taken lightly either.-- George



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Mark Linimon]

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:31:19PM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
> If someone likes synth please support it.

This.  Very much this.

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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Stari Karp]

Looks like the new portmaster is coming but what is about Synth? I am
the user of Synth and I like to know what the FreeBSD leaders decided,
please.

Thank you.

SK

___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Torsten Zuehlsdorff]

On 02.06.2017 12:24, Jim Ohlstein wrote:

On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 06:10 -0400, Stari Karp wrote:

Looks like the new portmaster is coming but what is about Synth? I am
the user of Synth and I like to know what the FreeBSD leaders
decided,
please.



The "FreeBSD leaders," in their infinite wisdom, decided to can John
Marino. Synth development will likely go on, geared towards Dragonfly.
Whether it will support future FreeBSD ports enhancements is anyone's
guess. 


While i can follow the critique i want to say: out of experience in 
various communities - online and offline: if one project is centered 
around one single person it will fail. Its just a matter of time and 
exceptions are rarely.


If someone likes synth please support it. Programming is just one single 
part needed to keep a project alive, even a programming-project. If you 
feel you are not a programmer, but for example a manager, manage to ask 
people for support, for feedback, for programming, etc.


Greetings,
Torsten
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Jim Ohlstein]

On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 06:10 -0400, Stari Karp wrote:
> Looks like the new portmaster is coming but what is about Synth? I am
> the user of Synth and I like to know what the FreeBSD leaders
> decided,
> please.
> 

The "FreeBSD leaders," in their infinite wisdom, decided to can John
Marino. Synth development will likely go on, geared towards Dragonfly.
Whether it will support future FreeBSD ports enhancements is anyone's
guess. Whether gcc6-aux will ever be fixed for 12-CURRENT and 64 bit
inodes is also anyone's guess.

Sadly, it is/
was the best option for users looking to migrate to a "modern" tool for
whom poudriere was too much.

-- 
Jim Ohlstein
Professional Mailman Hosting
https://mailman-hosting.com/

___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Torsten Zuehlsdorff]

On 01.06.2017 18:20, Matthieu Volat wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:45:43 +0200
Torsten Zuehlsdorff  wrote:


[...]
Just as a short note: there is a complete rewrite of portmaster ongoing.
Since its a beast and everything else is very hard there is no public
evidence in case of failure. ;) Until now.

I'm currently try to convince all persons already got frustrated by
portmaster-programming to come together and work on it. I'm also working
at an decent automatic QA for it (and PHP and GitLab).



Hi and thanks, is there a name and a public repository for this initiative?


Currently not, but i would just name it simple like "portmaster 2". :D

The initiative is at the moment offline, besides various emails. I will 
meet with another person interested in rewrite and discuss it much more 
within the next weeks. Also there is a lot of paper with architectural 
notices, QA-requirements and ideas about what should be done and what not.


I will do a public announcement, when we start transferring it into the 
"wild". My current thought is creating a public repo on my private 
GitLab. I will use a special CI setup, but since it will need high 
permissions i need some control about what code went it.


I welcome of course every help. Beside the programming we need of course 
extensive testing and i want to improve the documentation on so many level.


Greetings,
Torsten
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Matthieu Volat]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:45:43 +0200
Torsten Zuehlsdorff  wrote:

> [...]
> Just as a short note: there is a complete rewrite of portmaster ongoing. 
> Since its a beast and everything else is very hard there is no public 
> evidence in case of failure. ;) Until now.
> 
> I'm currently try to convince all persons already got frustrated by 
> portmaster-programming to come together and work on it. I'm also working 
> at an decent automatic QA for it (and PHP and GitLab).
>

Hi and thanks, is there a name and a public repository for this initiative?


pgpDnNHjpXSXE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Torsten Zuehlsdorff]

On 31.05.2017 20:31, Adam Weinberger wrote:

On 31 May, 2017, at 11:28, Per olof Ljungmark 
wrote:

On 2017-05-31 02:10, Kevin Oberman wrote:

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon
> wrote: On
Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:

Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted
to say that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I
would miss it if it went.  Are there actually plans to retire
it?

To reiterate the status: * some extensive changes to the ports
framework are coming; * these will require large changes to all
the port upgrade tools; * no one has stepped forwards to offer to
do the work for anything other than poudriere AFAIK. If no one
does the work, at the time the large changes come, the other
tools will break. People have been wanting subpackages (aka
flavors) for many years; IIUC these are parts of the changes that
are coming. Someone needs to step forwards and say "yes, I will
do the work." mcl Since portmaster is still popult and since the
only solutions that looks to be available in the near term are
pouderiere or raw make, neither terribly viable for many, I will
look into updating portmaster to deal with 'flavors'. This looks
fairly straight forward and I my have the sh capability to manage
it. (And then again, I am far from a great shell person, so I may
well be wrong.) I have looked at Doug's script and it is pretty
readable, but writing may require help. Can someone point me
where to look for documentation on flavors? I have poked around
the wiki, but to no avail. Unless there is documentation on what
needs to be done, doing it will be hopeless and waiting for the
packaging system to updated means portmaster WILL be broken for
some period of time.


Let me just say that I would really, really appriciate if we could
keep such a simple tool. Why does it suit us? Because we have a
limited number of systems, and they are all different meaning that
we custom build for almost every task. Portmaster makes very easy
to build what we need on each host. Yes, it brakes sometimes but it
is not that hard to figure out how to get around.


I want to reiterate that nobody is taking portmaster away from you.
It simply has not been actively developed for years. In all
likelihood, somebody will patch portmaster eventually. Poudriere is a
safer, more capable tool than portmaster, and it's better to migrate
when there's no immediate time pressure or breakage.

The changes are not about to drop. Portmaster is not going to stop
working tomorrow. We are bringing it up now so that you have time to
consider migrating to poudriere or synth. If your system(s) and
workflow make poudriere a viable option, we want to encourage and
help you to migrate while there's no time pressure.

Sending emails to this list about why you prefer portmaster doesn't
change the underlying problem, though: portmaster will only be
long-term viable if somebody actively develops it again.


Just as a short note: there is a complete rewrite of portmaster ongoing. 
Since its a beast and everything else is very hard there is no public 
evidence in case of failure. ;) Until now.


I'm currently try to convince all persons already got frustrated by 
portmaster-programming to come together and work on it. I'm also working 
at an decent automatic QA for it (and PHP and GitLab).


Greetings,
Torsten
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Mark Linimon]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 05:58:24PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Core has some proposals around planning for such changes that they will
> be talking about during the BSDCan devsummit next week.  These should
> also be published internally fairly soon afterwards for the benefit of
> people not at BSDCan.

I'll look forward to seein what the conclusions are.

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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Dave Horsfall]

On Wed, 31 May 2017, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:

> Let me just say that I would really, really appriciate if we could keep 
> such a simple tool. Why does it suit us? Because we have a limited 
> number of systems, [...]

And the sytems we do have can be somewhat limited; I mean, Ada, FFS?

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Jim Trigg]

If you can give me access to a development system, I'll help.

(I only have a production server for the domains I host for a few 
not-for-profit organizations, and my home server is currently out of service 
with a bad power supply.)

Jim Trigg


On May 30, 2017 8:10:17 PM EDT, Kevin Oberman  wrote:
>On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon 
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
>> > Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted to
>say
>> > that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I would miss
>> > it if it went.  Are there actually plans to retire it?
>>
>> To reiterate the status:
>>
>>  * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming;
>>  * these will require large changes to all the port upgrade tools;
>>  * no one has stepped forwards to offer to do the work for anything
>>other than poudriere AFAIK.
>>
>> If no one does the work, at the time the large changes come, the
>> other tools will break.
>>
>> People have been wanting subpackages (aka flavors) for many years;
>> IIUC these are parts of the changes that are coming.
>>
>> Someone needs to step forwards and say "yes, I will do the work."
>>
>> mcl
>
>
>Since portmaster is still popult and since the only solutions that
>looks to
>be available in the near term are pouderiere or raw make, neither
>terribly
>viable for many, I will look into updating portmaster to deal with
>'flavors'. This looks fairly straight forward and I my have the sh
>capability to manage it. (And then again, I am far from a great shell
>person, so I may well be wrong.) I have looked at Doug's script and it
>is
>pretty readable, but writing may require help.
>
>Can someone point me where to look for documentation on flavors? I have
>poked around the wiki, but to no avail. Unless there is documentation
>on
>what needs to be done, doing it will be hopeless and waiting for the
>packaging system to updated means portmaster WILL be broken for some
>period
>of time.
>--
>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"

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 31 May, 2017, at 11:28, Per olof Ljungmark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2017-05-31 02:10, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon > > wrote:
>>On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
>>> Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted to say
>>> that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I would miss
>>> it if it went.  Are there actually plans to retire it?
>>To reiterate the status:
>>  * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming;
>>  * these will require large changes to all the port upgrade tools;
>>  * no one has stepped forwards to offer to do the work for anything
>>other than poudriere AFAIK.
>>If no one does the work, at the time the large changes come, the
>>other tools will break.
>>People have been wanting subpackages (aka flavors) for many years;
>>IIUC these are parts of the changes that are coming.
>>Someone needs to step forwards and say "yes, I will do the work."
>>mcl
>> Since portmaster is still popult and since the only solutions that looks to 
>> be available in the near term are pouderiere or raw make, neither terribly 
>> viable for many, I will look into updating portmaster to deal with 
>> 'flavors'. This looks fairly straight forward and I my have the sh 
>> capability to manage it. (And then again, I am far from a great shell 
>> person, so I may well be wrong.) I have looked at Doug's script and it is 
>> pretty readable, but writing may require help.
>> Can someone point me where to look for documentation on flavors? I have 
>> poked around the wiki, but to no avail. Unless there is documentation on 
>> what needs to be done, doing it will be hopeless and waiting for the 
>> packaging system to updated means portmaster WILL be broken for some period 
>> of time.
> 
> Let me just say that I would really, really appriciate if we could keep such 
> a simple tool. Why does it suit us? Because we have a limited number of 
> systems, and they are all different meaning that we custom build for almost 
> every task. Portmaster makes very easy to build what we need on each host. 
> Yes, it brakes sometimes but it is not that hard to figure out how to get 
> around.

I want to reiterate that nobody is taking portmaster away from you. It simply 
has not been actively developed for years. In all likelihood, somebody will 
patch portmaster eventually. Poudriere is a safer, more capable tool than 
portmaster, and it's better to migrate when there's no immediate time pressure 
or breakage.

The changes are not about to drop. Portmaster is not going to stop working 
tomorrow. We are bringing it up now so that you have time to consider migrating 
to poudriere or synth. If your system(s) and workflow make poudriere a viable 
option, we want to encourage and help you to migrate while there's no time 
pressure.

Sending emails to this list about why you prefer portmaster doesn't change the 
underlying problem, though: portmaster will only be long-term viable if 
somebody actively develops it again.

# 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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Steve Kargl]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 07:28:38PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> 
> On 2017-05-31 02:10, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon  > > wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> > > Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted to say
> > > that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I would miss
> > > it if it went.  Are there actually plans to retire it?
> > 
> > To reiterate the status:
> > 
> >   * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming;
> >   * these will require large changes to all the port upgrade tools;
> >   * no one has stepped forwards to offer to do the work for anything
> > other than poudriere AFAIK.
> > 
> > If no one does the work, at the time the large changes come, the
> > other tools will break.
> > 
> > People have been wanting subpackages (aka flavors) for many years;
> > IIUC these are parts of the changes that are coming.
> > 
> > Someone needs to step forwards and say "yes, I will do the work."
> > 
> > mcl
> > 
> > Since portmaster is still popult and since the only solutions that looks 
> > to be available in the near term are pouderiere or raw make, neither 
> > terribly viable for many, I will look into updating portmaster to deal 
> > with 'flavors'. This looks fairly straight forward and I my have the sh 
> > capability to manage it. (And then again, I am far from a great shell 
> > person, so I may well be wrong.) I have looked at Doug's script and it 
> > is pretty readable, but writing may require help.
> > 
> > Can someone point me where to look for documentation on flavors? I have 
> > poked around the wiki, but to no avail. Unless there is documentation on 
> > what needs to be done, doing it will be hopeless and waiting for the 
> > packaging system to updated means portmaster WILL be broken for some 
> > period of time.
> 
> Let me just say that I would really, really appriciate if we could keep 
> such a simple tool. Why does it suit us? Because we have a limited 
> number of systems, and they are all different meaning that we custom 
> build for almost every task. Portmaster makes very easy to build what we 
> need on each host. Yes, it brakes sometimes but it is not that hard to 
> figure out how to get around.

+1

I have one i386 system (a laptop) with 1.5 GB of memory, at any
given time between 3-8 GB free diskspace, and a slow USB2 port.  
Poudriere and synth are simply overkill for maintaining ports 
for that laptop.

-- 
Steve
20170425 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWUpyCsUKR4
20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Per olof Ljungmark]

On 2017-05-31 02:10, Kevin Oberman wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon > wrote:


On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted to say
> that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I would miss
> it if it went.  Are there actually plans to retire it?

To reiterate the status:

  * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming;
  * these will require large changes to all the port upgrade tools;
  * no one has stepped forwards to offer to do the work for anything
other than poudriere AFAIK.

If no one does the work, at the time the large changes come, the
other tools will break.

People have been wanting subpackages (aka flavors) for many years;
IIUC these are parts of the changes that are coming.

Someone needs to step forwards and say "yes, I will do the work."

mcl


Since portmaster is still popult and since the only solutions that looks 
to be available in the near term are pouderiere or raw make, neither 
terribly viable for many, I will look into updating portmaster to deal 
with 'flavors'. This looks fairly straight forward and I my have the sh 
capability to manage it. (And then again, I am far from a great shell 
person, so I may well be wrong.) I have looked at Doug's script and it 
is pretty readable, but writing may require help.


Can someone point me where to look for documentation on flavors? I have 
poked around the wiki, but to no avail. Unless there is documentation on 
what needs to be done, doing it will be hopeless and waiting for the 
packaging system to updated means portmaster WILL be broken for some 
period of time.


Let me just say that I would really, really appriciate if we could keep 
such a simple tool. Why does it suit us? Because we have a limited 
number of systems, and they are all different meaning that we custom 
build for almost every task. Portmaster makes very easy to build what we 
need on each host. Yes, it brakes sometimes but it is not that hard to 
figure out how to get around.

___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Matthew Seaman]

On 2017/05/31 17:11, Roger Marquis wrote:
> Mark Linimon wrote:
>> * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming;
> 
> Is there a URL (other than svnweb) where we can see a project plan for
> these changes?  As in the recent past (i.e., since 8-REL) the FreeBSD
> end-user community has reason to be worried that:
> 
>  * popular tools that were broken in the last major ports update (to
>  pkgng) will again not be considered part of the update,
> 
>  * developers and users of those tools will suffer the pain of
>  significant refactoring (again) and their Linux-advocating co-engineers
>  will be even more effective in reducing or eliminating FreeBSD in their
>  environments,
> 
>  * little discussion and few details will (again) be available before
>  the transition, and
> 
>  * it will (again) not occur exclusively on a major revision boundary.
> 
>  ** These concerns are not so much workload-related as much as they are
>  planning-related.
> 
> The lack of planning in previous ports/pkg updates was destructive and
> unnecessary.  Has anything changed?
> 
> Considering the delays in implementing base packages, pkg_audit that
> ignores base or recently deprecated ports and yet another major upgrade
> to the ports framework it should not need to be pointed out that our
> favorite OS has become far more difficult to update and maintain than
> any version of Linux.

Core has some proposals around planning for such changes that they will
be talking about during the BSDCan devsummit next week.  These should
also be published internally fairly soon afterwards for the benefit of
people not at BSDCan.

Cheers,

Matthew




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Gerard Seibert]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 09:11:23 -0700, Roger Marquis stated:

>Mark Linimon wrote:
>> * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming;  
>
>Is there a URL (other than svnweb) where we can see a project plan for
>these changes?  As in the recent past (i.e., since 8-REL) the FreeBSD
>end-user community has reason to be worried that:
>
>  * popular tools that were broken in the last major ports update (to
>  pkgng) will again not be considered part of the update,
>
>  * developers and users of those tools will suffer the pain of
>  significant refactoring (again) and their Linux-advocating
> co-engineers will be even more effective in reducing or eliminating
> FreeBSD in their environments,
>
>  * little discussion and few details will (again) be available before
>  the transition, and
>
>  * it will (again) not occur exclusively on a major revision boundary.
>
>  ** These concerns are not so much workload-related as much as they
> are planning-related.
>
>The lack of planning in previous ports/pkg updates was destructive and
>unnecessary.  Has anything changed?
>
>Considering the delays in implementing base packages, pkg_audit that
>ignores base or recently deprecated ports and yet another major upgrade
>to the ports framework it should not need to be pointed out that our
>favorite OS has become far more difficult to update and maintain than
>any version of Linux.
>
>> * these will require large changes to all the port upgrade tools;
>> * no one has stepped forwards to offer to do the work for anything
>>   other than poudriere AFAIK.  
>
>Perhaps this is because many of us have not heard of the extensive
>changes coming to the ports framework until now much less had the
>opportunity to contribute to discussion much less policies that should
>guide it.
>
>> If no one does the work, at the time the large changes come, the
>> other tools will break.  
>
>Bottom line, these are not just tools breaking, this is FreeBSD
>breaking.
>
>IMO,
>Roger

I would like to add that I agree with Roger, especially the “major
revision boundary” statement. Many times in the past, I have done fresh
installs of new versions of FreeBSD only to have a significant change
in that version made, forcing me to recompile ports, etcetera. I now
see that “synth” is broken on FreeBSD-12. If history repeats itself, 12
will be released, then a significant change to the ports system
initiated forcing a recompilation of the ports, etcetera to get “synth”
working again. I am sure that there are lots of other programs in the
same predicament. This is just not acceptable. Before the next release
of FreeBSD, all the base programs should be updated to their newest
versions, the “default” versions of “perl,” “python,” etcetera should
be updated as required.

-- 
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Roger Marquis]

Mark Linimon wrote:

* some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming;


Is there a URL (other than svnweb) where we can see a project plan for
these changes?  As in the recent past (i.e., since 8-REL) the FreeBSD
end-user community has reason to be worried that:

 * popular tools that were broken in the last major ports update (to
 pkgng) will again not be considered part of the update,

 * developers and users of those tools will suffer the pain of
 significant refactoring (again) and their Linux-advocating co-engineers
 will be even more effective in reducing or eliminating FreeBSD in their
 environments,

 * little discussion and few details will (again) be available before
 the transition, and

 * it will (again) not occur exclusively on a major revision boundary.

 ** These concerns are not so much workload-related as much as they are
 planning-related.

The lack of planning in previous ports/pkg updates was destructive and
unnecessary.  Has anything changed?

Considering the delays in implementing base packages, pkg_audit that
ignores base or recently deprecated ports and yet another major upgrade
to the ports framework it should not need to be pointed out that our
favorite OS has become far more difficult to update and maintain than
any version of Linux.


* these will require large changes to all the port upgrade tools;
* no one has stepped forwards to offer to do the work for anything
  other than poudriere AFAIK.


Perhaps this is because many of us have not heard of the extensive
changes coming to the ports framework until now much less had the
opportunity to contribute to discussion much less policies that should
guide it.


If no one does the work, at the time the large changes come, the
other tools will break.


Bottom line, these are not just tools breaking, this is FreeBSD
breaking.

IMO,
Roger
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Jim Ohlstein]

On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 12:47 +, Gerard Seibert wrote:
> I would just like a clarification here. For the record, synth is
> broken
> on FreeBSD-11 and above with amd64. Is that correct?

My understanding was that the breakage is in gcc6-aux on 12-CURRENT
with 64 bit inodes.

I may be wrong...

-- 
Jim Ohlstein
Professional Mailman Hosting
https://mailman-hosting.com/
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Gerard Seibert]

I would just like a clarification here. For the record, synth is broken
on FreeBSD-11 and above with amd64. Is that correct?

-- 
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Mark Millard]

On 2017-May-30, at 1:06 PM, Mark Linimon  wrote:

> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:00:14PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
>> Kevin Oberman rkoberman at gmail.com wrote on Tue May 30 16:52:19 UTC 2017
>> 
>>> I really suggest that you look at synth.
> 
> synth is currently only available for x86 and unless someone steps up
> to do the work to make the Ada compilers run on the other architectures
> that is certain to remain to the case.

As I understand currently x86 and amd64 are also broken for
lang/gcc6-aux if built from a recent enough head (ino64).

True historically (x86/amd64) but briefly there was a little more,
at least for a native aarch64 context if I understand right.
(Possibly armv6 and/or armv7 too?)

My understanding is that there was a short time when aarch64 also
had Ada going via lang/gcc6-aux . But the problem of gcc's technique
of adjusting system headers so it has separate copies (supposedly to
force the headers to be language complaint) vs. FreeBSD making updates
to various headers that has gcc copied and adjusted broke the bootstrap
compiler's ability to do the bootstrap. (A compiler involved in the
bootstrap for aarch64 is actually retrieved from elsewhere as part of
the build as I remember. But it processes the headers that are as of
when the bootstrap compiler was built and made its adjustments.)

In other words: the overall mechanism (FreeBSD+gcc) is fragile and
both sides tend to think that the other side should be the one to
change how they work in order to remove the fragile status. The
two parts just do not fit well and no minor variations in how
the two operate can remove the mismatch.

I happened to do my attempted experiment that involved building
ports-mgmt/synth on aarch64 after things had broken. (I did not
try armv6/v7 but there might have been a short time when there
was context in that area that worked as well.)

aarch64 (and any others) did not last long.

Powerpc, powerpc64, mips, etc. have never attempted for Ada support
as far as know.

===
Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net


___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Kevin Oberman]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon  wrote:

> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> > Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted to say
> > that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I would miss
> > it if it went.  Are there actually plans to retire it?
>
> To reiterate the status:
>
>  * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming;
>  * these will require large changes to all the port upgrade tools;
>  * no one has stepped forwards to offer to do the work for anything
>other than poudriere AFAIK.
>
> If no one does the work, at the time the large changes come, the
> other tools will break.
>
> People have been wanting subpackages (aka flavors) for many years;
> IIUC these are parts of the changes that are coming.
>
> Someone needs to step forwards and say "yes, I will do the work."
>
> mcl


Since portmaster is still popult and since the only solutions that looks to
be available in the near term are pouderiere or raw make, neither terribly
viable for many, I will look into updating portmaster to deal with
'flavors'. This looks fairly straight forward and I my have the sh
capability to manage it. (And then again, I am far from a great shell
person, so I may well be wrong.) I have looked at Doug's script and it is
pretty readable, but writing may require help.

Can someone point me where to look for documentation on flavors? I have
poked around the wiki, but to no avail. Unless there is documentation on
what needs to be done, doing it will be hopeless and waiting for the
packaging system to updated means portmaster WILL be broken for some period
of time.
--
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Mark Linimon]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted to say
> that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I would miss
> it if it went.  Are there actually plans to retire it?

To reiterate the status:

 * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming;
 * these will require large changes to all the port upgrade tools;
 * no one has stepped forwards to offer to do the work for anything
   other than poudriere AFAIK.

If no one does the work, at the time the large changes come, the
other tools will break.

People have been wanting subpackages (aka flavors) for many years;
IIUC these are parts of the changes that are coming.

Someone needs to step forwards and say "yes, I will do the work."

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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Per olof Ljungmark]

On 2017-05-30 22:06, Mark Linimon wrote:

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:00:14PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:

Kevin Oberman rkoberman at gmail.com wrote on Tue May 30 16:52:19 UTC 2017


I really suggest that you look at synth.


synth is currently only available for x86 and unless someone steps up
to do the work to make the Ada compilers run on the other architectures
that is certain to remain to the case.


Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted to say 
that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I would miss it 
if it went. Are there actually plans to retire it? Hope I didn't miss 
something.


Just my $0.02... //per
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Ed Maste]

On 30 May 2017 at 15:00, Mark Millard  wrote:
>
> ports-mgmt/synth depends on lang/gcc6-aux

For reference, I've created PR 219667 to track the lang/gcc6-aux
issue. The pre-built bootstrap compilers need to be recreated I
believe, with a trick similar to the one used for lang/ghc.
___
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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Mark Linimon]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:00:14PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> Kevin Oberman rkoberman at gmail.com wrote on Tue May 30 16:52:19 UTC 2017
> 
> > I really suggest that you look at synth.

synth is currently only available for x86 and unless someone steps up
to do the work to make the Ada compilers run on the other architectures
that is certain to remain to the case.

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: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

[Mark Millard]

Adam Weinberger adamw at adamw.org wrote on Tue May 30 14:00:21 UTC 2017:

> poudriere and synth are actively developed

Kevin Oberman rkoberman at gmail.com wrote on Tue May 30 16:52:19 UTC 2017

> I really suggest that you look at synth.

ports-mgmt/synth depends on lang/gcc6-aux which
has lost its maintainer --and is broken for
FreeBSD head after the ino64 changes. (synth
was written in ada --which is not directly
available from the normal lang/gcc* 's.) This
broken status includes amd64 now.

(The lang/gcc6-aux maintainer was also the
author/creator.)

A similar status happened for ports-mgmt/synth
relative to its newly claimed aarch64 support:
lang/gcc6-aux turned out to be broken such that
it would not build on aarch64, which in turn
stopped ports-mgmt/synth builds. . .

ports-mgmt/synth -r437524 (Sun Apr 2) reported:

> ports-mgmt/synth: update 1.68 -> 1.69
> 

> - FreeBSD/ARM* support

but by the time I tried I could not build it
because I could not build lang/gcc6-aux on a
Pine64+ 2GB: head's system headers vs. gcc
munging of copies them were no longer matched
in the bootstrap process that lang/gcc6-aux
uses. This is still true even without
progressing to the ino64 changes in FreeBSD's
head (12-CURRENT).

Unfortunately ports-mgmt/synth suffers from
build prerequisites that do not have a wide
range of contributing maintainers or otherwise
broad support. This looks like it will make
ports-mgmt/synth problematical as things are.

===
Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net

___
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"