Re: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Johan Hendriks]

>
>> On Dec 6, 2017, at 14:01, Torfinn Ingolfsen  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Bryan Drewery  wrote:
>>> I plan to look at portupgrade + FLAVORS support in the next few weeks as
>>> well.
>>>
>> Very, very much appreciated!
> Yes, same here.
>
> My experience thus far is that the current version "just works"
> most of the time.  Sometimes I get an "error 70" or something like
> that but going into the port directory itself and doing a "make
> deinstall" followed by a "make install" get rid of these problems.
> For python things, a "make FLAVOR=py27" seems needed.  All in all,
> I haven't seen any reason to abandon FreeBSD and am patient enough
> to wait for a fixed portmaster.
>
> Regards,
>
>   jaap
>
I did get the error70 also, albeit this was in /usr/ports/www/apache24
which as far as I know has nothing to do with flavour
Things will settle in the end, and as i am using poudriere for most of
my systems, i am not that worried.
Leaving FreeBSD for me has never crossed my mind, but I think these
things can be handled better.

First notify these big changes on the frontpage of FreeBSD.org like in X
days the ports tree is going to receive flavours, this change will leave
a lot  of port tools in a not working state.
Also A nice info page about flavours would be nice. I am not deep into
ports and havent had the time to look into it yet,  but finding good
info about flavours is not that easy.
Then put a nice wiki page online that tells people how they can use
poudriere in a simple oneliner version to replace portmaster.
Also let people know on the frontpage that Flavours have finally landed
in the ports tree and remind them again that it could be that there
favorite port tool could be obsolete.

A lot of users want things to be easy. There not system administrators
that have the time to figure out the new way of updating there system. I
think hell would freeze over if Microsoft does it the way FreeBSD did it
now with there windows update.
This way we scare people off. I saw people asking for help and all they
hear was use poudriere!!

regards
Johan



___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Jaap Akkerhuis]

> On Dec 6, 2017, at 14:01, Torfinn Ingolfsen  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Bryan Drewery  wrote:
>> 
>> I plan to look at portupgrade + FLAVORS support in the next few weeks as
>> well.
>> 
> 
> Very, very much appreciated!

Yes, same here.

My experience thus far is that the current version "just works"
most of the time.  Sometimes I get an "error 70" or something like
that but going into the port directory itself and doing a "make
deinstall" followed by a "make install" get rid of these problems.
For python things, a "make FLAVOR=py27" seems needed.  All in all,
I haven't seen any reason to abandon FreeBSD and am patient enough
to wait for a fixed portmaster.

Regards,

jaap



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Torfinn Ingolfsen]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Bryan Drewery  wrote:
>
> I plan to look at portupgrade + FLAVORS support in the next few weeks as
> well.
>

Very, very much appreciated!

-- 
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Bryan Drewery]

On 12/1/2017 9:59 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> First, welcome flavors. It has been badly needed for a while and is going
> to clean up a couple of messes that have been plaguing the port system for
> a long time.

I plan to look at portupgrade + FLAVORS support in the next few weeks as
well.

-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
bdrewery@freenode/EFNet
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Dennis Glatting]

On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 18:10 +0100, Jan Beich wrote:
> Dennis Glatting  writes:
> 
> >  1) I am tired of port breakage. I am past tired of being told to
> > read
> > UPDATEs when UPDATEs often has limited information, including
> > install
> > conflicts. 
> > 
> >  2) "Error 70" on installs with no indication of where the error
> > was
> > incurred and thus requiring me to make with debug flags and then
> > dig
> > deep is past annoying. 
> 
> [...]
> > Further:
> > 
> > 1) Under FreeBSD I do not do binaries, rather I do source and I do
> > source for reasons. Under Linux, source is troublesome.
> 
> I'm curious what are those "reasons" that don't affect Linux. Those
> may
> be valid FreeBSD shortcomings unlike what you've listed above which
> is
> mainly about source vs. binary packages.

Source verses binaries are valid "reasons" and are based on application
and operation placement. 

With source, I can compile out optional  code (e.g., SQL hooks in
OpenLDAP) whereas binary packages are often compiled to be all things
to all people (i.e., more functionality is offered). Although one can
argue that inclusion of compile-time optional code into a binary is
only operationally enabled through a proper configuration, there are
problems with that argument:

 1) The compile-time optional code may not be truly disabled 
through configuration files,
 2) Some functions are enabled by default, and
 3) They represent threat vectors.

If you do not include compile-time optional code then reduced threat
vectors.

Linux is a series of trade offs. If application code is written with
CUDA then you have to support the application with all of its warts and
baggage. If I /have/ to do source under Linux then I have to do source
but I don't /want/ to do source because the process is often ugly.  

Another trade off, which annoys the hell out of me, is NetworkManager
verses other "helpful" tools. None of those tools are fun when doing
custom networking, which includes VLANs and IPv6 as if those are new
advanced concepts, and configuration is different across Linux
distributions including Debian Stretch and Raspberry PI3 although
they're running nearly the same version of Debian. 

It is maddening. Hulk want to smash!

With FreeBSD, I simply hack a few files in /etc and I'm good to go.
Also under FreeBSD, what I need to configure in /etc is often obvious
and I don't have to waddle through gobs of confusing, unrelated, and
often erroneous documents and Internet posts. FreeBSD isn't perfect but
FreeBSD has this useful thing called a Handbook.

I can, and do, enable IPTables in Linux and IPFW in FreeBSD for added 
protections but if a threat vector isn't there (i.e., not in the
binary) then there are less exploitable threat vectors - it's
discernible math at that point. Do I want to manage lists of IPTables
and IPFW? No. They get complex and create breakage paths.

When one is required to have heterogeneous infrastructures one wants
commonness and simplicity while at the same time not admitting to that
bottle of whiskey in one's desk drawer. I often strip stupid stuff,
such as NetworkManager, and life gets simpler and less migraine prone.

That all said, my response was based on the point of that the finite
resource sword cuts both ways. If one operating system increases my 
annoyance and another does not, there is a point where my bias leans.

Oh, and "hell no" to Windows. It's evil and I live across Lake
Sammamish from the Evil Empire.

-- 
Dennis Glatting
Numbers Skeptic
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Steven Hartland]

On 05/12/2017 04:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote:

Steven Hartland wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 at 03:02, Michelle Sullivan  
wrote:



You mean if you're not into security or part of a security company stay
on quarterly, but if you need to keep patched up because you are in the
top 100 of most attacked sites/companies in the world, deploy a team of
people to patch security issues and run your own ports tree because
breakage on HEAD is often and when you need it the least and quarterly
doesn't guarantee it'll even work/compile and nearly never gets 
security

patches.


Sorry, but that's the truth of it and the reason I no longer use 
FreeBSD

or the Ports tree, instead using a derivative of each which is a lot
more stable and patched against security issues within hours of them
being identified.


This has not been our experience here, we’ve run our own ports tree from
HEAD for many years and while we’ve had some internal patches that need
fixing on update, thats always been down to us not keeping them up to 
date

with changes.


We were using HEAD, not a local copy that we could put patches in 
(that was the issue - we'd submit patches up and find them not applied 
for months in some cases.)
That's really unfortunate and I don't think you're alone, bringing in 
more resources to ports something that needs to be worked on.


Sure we could have got lucky but it does mean that such a blanket 
statement

is not valid for everyone’s use case.


I think you'll find using HEAD (as in the raw HEAD) not just a local 
copy with local patches it probably does ring true a lot - that said, 
didn't really bite me badly until the decision to force user changes 
by breaking the existing system (for me that was pkg_* -> pkgng) for 
others.. well they can say if they dare to chip in.
pkg -> pkgng was a little bit bumpy at the start but the results have 
been very much worth it.




I’m not sure if it’s possible but if you’re already allocating 
resources to

help handle security patches could that not be something that the wider
user base could benefit from via helping the secteam, if its turnaround
time on security patches you’re highlighting as an issue here?



Not working on FreeBSD now, the team deals with all in house OSes, 
FreeBSD is not deployed here anymore except on legacy machines that 
are being replaced (and I'm surprised there are any left now.)



Sorry to hear that.

___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Michelle Sullivan]

Steven Hartland wrote:

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 at 03:02, Michelle Sullivan  wrote:


You mean if you're not into security or part of a security company stay
on quarterly, but if you need to keep patched up because you are in the
top 100 of most attacked sites/companies in the world, deploy a team of
people to patch security issues and run your own ports tree because
breakage on HEAD is often and when you need it the least and quarterly
doesn't guarantee it'll even work/compile and nearly never gets security
patches.


Sorry, but that's the truth of it and the reason I no longer use FreeBSD
or the Ports tree, instead using a derivative of each which is a lot
more stable and patched against security issues within hours of them
being identified.


This has not been our experience here, we’ve run our own ports tree from
HEAD for many years and while we’ve had some internal patches that need
fixing on update, thats always been down to us not keeping them up to date
with changes.


We were using HEAD, not a local copy that we could put patches in (that 
was the issue - we'd submit patches up and find them not applied for 
months in some cases.)


Sure we could have got lucky but it does mean that such a blanket statement
is not valid for everyone’s use case.


I think you'll find using HEAD (as in the raw HEAD) not just a local 
copy with local patches it probably does ring true a lot - that said, 
didn't really bite me badly until the decision to force user changes by 
breaking the existing system (for me that was pkg_* -> pkgng) for 
others.. well they can say if they dare to chip in.




I’m not sure if it’s possible but if you’re already allocating resources to
help handle security patches could that not be something that the wider
user base could benefit from via helping the secteam, if its turnaround
time on security patches you’re highlighting as an issue here?



Not working on FreeBSD now, the team deals with all in house OSes, 
FreeBSD is not deployed here anymore except on legacy machines that are 
being replaced (and I'm surprised there are any left now.)


Michelle
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Charlie Li]

On 04/12/2017 21:52, Dewayne Geraghty wrote:
> Unfortunately it appears that we need to build multiple versions of,
> say, python when you only NEED to run 2.7 refer to (1) above?  It used
> to be that the ports team recommended when users should update python,
> php, etc and the ports suite would head in that direction.   Its an
> uncomfortable prospect - *maintaining* multiple versions of the same
> language on a production platform...
> 
Not everyone updates their Python environments at the same time,
especially when you have scripts/programs that use libraries and
functions whose names can change on a whim between 3.x releases.

Flavours ime solved more of a dependency hell situation where certain
ports would strictly depend on python2.7 packages but the
system/make.conf (like how mine is set up) has python3.x as default.
Before flavours, those python ports would build python3.x packages
instead of the python2.7 ones needed by the port that specified them.
For example, I had to insert some ugly hacks into the python
dependencies of net/samba4x and www/firefox, among other ports with the
same problem I faced, to force those python ports to build the python2.7
package.

-- 
Charlie Li
Can't think of a witty .sigline today…

(This email address is for mailing list use only;
replace local-part with vishwin for off-list communication)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Dewayne Geraghty]

On 5/12/2017 10:43 AM, Tatsuki Makino wrote:
> By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor?
> I am using portmaster.
> ___
> 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"
>
This might give you a clue. 
(1) https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision=455210

Though after the apparent confusion with ansible from Nov 30, I think
I'll wait for the infrastructure developers to provide guidance
Refer:
(2) https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/sysutils/ansible/Makefile?view=log

Full marks to introducing python flavors as it should serve to iron out
the flavor problems. 

Unfortunately it appears that we need to build multiple versions of,
say, python when you only NEED to run 2.7 refer to (1) above?  It used
to be that the ports team recommended when users should update python,
php, etc and the ports suite would head in that direction.   Its an
uncomfortable prospect - *maintaining* multiple versions of the same
language on a production platform...



___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Tatsuki Makino]

By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor?
I am using portmaster.
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Steven Hartland]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 at 03:02, Michelle Sullivan  wrote:

>
> You mean if you're not into security or part of a security company stay
> on quarterly, but if you need to keep patched up because you are in the
> top 100 of most attacked sites/companies in the world, deploy a team of
> people to patch security issues and run your own ports tree because
> breakage on HEAD is often and when you need it the least and quarterly
> doesn't guarantee it'll even work/compile and nearly never gets security
> patches.
>
>
> Sorry, but that's the truth of it and the reason I no longer use FreeBSD
> or the Ports tree, instead using a derivative of each which is a lot
> more stable and patched against security issues within hours of them
> being identified.


This has not been our experience here, we’ve run our own ports tree from
HEAD for many years and while we’ve had some internal patches that need
fixing on update, thats always been down to us not keeping them up to date
with changes.

Sure we could have got lucky but it does mean that such a blanket statement
is not valid for everyone’s use case.

I’m not sure if it’s possible but if you’re already allocating resources to
help handle security patches could that not be something that the wider
user base could benefit from via helping the secteam, if its turnaround
time on security patches you’re highlighting as an issue here?
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Roger Marquis]

Jonathan Chen wrote:

Thomas Mueller  wrote:

I can still see possible use for portmaster in that something has to

be used to build synth or poudriere from source.
You don't need portmaster for that. You just need make(1).


This is what we do plus a few extras to share the resulting ports across
systems:

 * instead of 'make install' use 'make package && pkg add' like
   OpenBSD

 * the package directory is updated with each new package
   'cd /usr/ports/packages/All && pkg repo'

 * the resulting repo is shared across jails using null mounts and/or
   across hosts using apache or nginx

This has certain benefits over poudriere:

 * KIS

 * it is straightforward to update only ports with security
   vulnerabilities

 * works seamlessly in a jail, with or without zfs

 * requires less cpu and disk

On the downside:

 * haven't yet automated the entire process (pkg audit ; make
   package ; (pkg add ; service restart))

 * base cannot (yet) be updated this way even on hosts/jails with
   packaged base

 * 'pkg audit' is not as up-to-date or reliable as the same
   functionality on Linux (tor, for example, has been vulnerable since
   12/1, had an updated Makefile since 12/2, yet there is still no
   mention of it in vuxml, 3 days and one 'cd security/vuxml;make
   newentry' later)

FWIW,
Roger Marquis
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Jan Beich]

Dennis Glatting  writes:

>  1) I am tired of port breakage. I am past tired of being told to read
> UPDATEs when UPDATEs often has limited information, including install
> conflicts. 
>
>  2) "Error 70" on installs with no indication of where the error was
> incurred and thus requiring me to make with debug flags and then dig
> deep is past annoying. 
[...]
> Further:
>
> 1) Under FreeBSD I do not do binaries, rather I do source and I do
> source for reasons. Under Linux, source is troublesome.

I'm curious what are those "reasons" that don't affect Linux. Those may
be valid FreeBSD shortcomings unlike what you've listed above which is
mainly about source vs. binary packages.
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/03/17 20:47, Dennis Glatting wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-12-03 at 20:07 +, Steven Hartland wrote:
>> People really seem to miss the point that there are only finite
>> resources
>> and as an open source project that depends on people volunteering
>> their
>> time to add new features and maintain tools.
>
> Missing the point cuts both ways.
>
> If you have a a couple swaths of servers managed to certain tool chains
> then the conversion process is an unnecessary and non-trivial resource
> consumption. I have moved servers to Ubuntu and (groan) other Linux
> flavors and customized the processes because:
>
>   1) I am tired of port breakage. I am past tired of being told to read
> UPDATEs when UPDATEs often has limited information, including install
> conflicts.
>
>   2) "Error 70" on installs with no indication of where the error was
> incurred and thus requiring me to make with debug flags and then dig
> deep is past annoying.
>
>   3) Nvidia does not support CUDA under FreeBSD and this is a problem
> for TensorFlow and other applications. If I went the OpenCL route
> (e.g., AMD GPUs) then my application base would be significantly
> limited. I don't consider Intel a serious solution.
>
> Further:
>
> 1) Under FreeBSD I do not do binaries, rather I do source and I do
> source for reasons. Under Linux, source is troublesome.
>
> 2) I had no hope of getting Intel Phi processors working under FreeBSD
> but I do have them working under Linux, including the older Phis under
> CentOS. I recognize this is an Intel problem which is one of the
> reasons I do not consider Intel a serious solution, not to mention the
> requirements and cost of an Intel compiler and Intel libraries.
>
> 3) FreeBSD offers me ZFS and FreeNAS as an alternative, particularly
> for HyperV/VMware SANS. Under Linux, ZFS has historically been
> troublesome.
>
>
> These are nothing more than a few data points. Please do not bother
> with the "then become a maintainer" response. It is not that I do not
> appreciate the efforts of others but that statement is a BS response,
> you know it, and I'll simply delete your message.
>
>
>
Exactly  +1 for this
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Michelle Sullivan]

Baho Utot wrote:



On 12/3/2017 5:04 PM, Carmel NY wrote:
I just checked out < 
https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports/wiki/quickstart-freebsd>
and < http://ravenports.ironwolf.systems/> and I have to admit that I 
am interested.

I am wondering if it will ever get accepted into the ports system.



No wayThey hate John around here.


Incorrect.  John won't get the commit-bit back and is unlikely to do 
anything himself.  However I'm betting if someone stepped up to the 
plate to submit it into the ports tree it would be accepted providing 
they also volunteer to be the maintainer.


Michelle
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Michelle Sullivan]

Adam Weinberger wrote:

On 3 Dec, 2017, at 14:31, Michelle Sullivan  wrote:

Adam Weinberger wrote:

You seem very angry about things breaking in HEAD, Baho. Things break in HEAD 
sometimes. This is why we recommend that end-users who can't have breakages, or 
users who depend on undeveloped tools, stay on the quarterly branch. Portmaster 
works perfectly on quarterly. Always has.


Quarterly is just a frozen HEAD with no/minute chances of security patches or 
other changes... why would you want to be there?  I couldn't even get someone to 
patch a security issue before the pkg_*->pkgng change..  was patched 4 days 
later despite having the patch in the bug before... and despite asking for the 
patch to be put in the quarterly they didn't either.  One continues to watch the 
exodus.

The MFH process was very complicated at first, and many committers didn't 
participate in it. Now it's largely automated and expected of all ports 
committers. The quarterly branches these days receive essentially all security 
fixes and most build fixes. As with all things FreeBSD, it's a best-effort 
process.

Quarterly is mostly static, and receives no unnecessary updates. It also 
receives no known breakages. That's the tradeoff between it and head.

We do the best we can, and if things get missed it's because we need more 
community involvement.


I got involved, I got shutdown by people who are determined to move 
FreeBSD in their direction, I am no longer involved.




If you can't handle the flux of HEAD, stay on quarterly. If you need the 
cutting-edge, use HEAD. As you noted, we are strained for resources to keep 
quarterly going; we simply don't have the ability to provide another in-between 
level.



You mean if you're not into security or part of a security company stay 
on quarterly, but if you need to keep patched up because you are in the 
top 100 of most attacked sites/companies in the world, deploy a team of 
people to patch security issues and run your own ports tree because 
breakage on HEAD is often and when you need it the least and quarterly 
doesn't guarantee it'll even work/compile and nearly never gets security 
patches.



Sorry, but that's the truth of it and the reason I no longer use FreeBSD 
or the Ports tree, instead using a derivative of each which is a lot 
more stable and patched against security issues within hours of them 
being identified.


Regards,

Michelle
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Mark Linimon]

Let me see if I can clear up some common misconceptions ...

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:56:45AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I believe portmaster and portupgrade work or worked on all supported
> versions and architectures of FreeBSD

In my experience I can only speak for amd64/i386, but AFAIK yes.

> but synth is limited.

Synth is written in Ada which IIUC limits it to amd64/i386.  I think
there was work to get Ada going under some arm variant but AFAIK it
was never completed.

Synth was never an option for mips/mips64/powerpc/powerpc64/sparc64.
 
> Does poudriere work on all supported versions and architectures of
> FreeBSD?

I personally run it native on amd64/powerpc64/sparc64 and cross on
aarch64/armv6/armv7, on various combinations of 10, 11, and -CURRENT.
I've had it running, under load, on these buildenvs for several years,
both with and without ZFS.  It is my go-to system.

It is also used to build packages on the freebsd.org cluster, including
mips/mips64.

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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Dennis Glatting]

On Sun, 2017-12-03 at 20:07 +, Steven Hartland wrote:
> People really seem to miss the point that there are only finite
> resources
> and as an open source project that depends on people volunteering
> their
> time to add new features and maintain tools.

Missing the point cuts both ways. 

If you have a a couple swaths of servers managed to certain tool chains
then the conversion process is an unnecessary and non-trivial resource
consumption. I have moved servers to Ubuntu and (groan) other Linux
flavors and customized the processes because:

 1) I am tired of port breakage. I am past tired of being told to read
UPDATEs when UPDATEs often has limited information, including install
conflicts. 

 2) "Error 70" on installs with no indication of where the error was
incurred and thus requiring me to make with debug flags and then dig
deep is past annoying. 

 3) Nvidia does not support CUDA under FreeBSD and this is a problem
for TensorFlow and other applications. If I went the OpenCL route
(e.g., AMD GPUs) then my application base would be significantly
limited. I don't consider Intel a serious solution.

Further:

1) Under FreeBSD I do not do binaries, rather I do source and I do
source for reasons. Under Linux, source is troublesome.

2) I had no hope of getting Intel Phi processors working under FreeBSD
but I do have them working under Linux, including the older Phis under
CentOS. I recognize this is an Intel problem which is one of the
reasons I do not consider Intel a serious solution, not to mention the
requirements and cost of an Intel compiler and Intel libraries.

3) FreeBSD offers me ZFS and FreeNAS as an alternative, particularly
for HyperV/VMware SANS. Under Linux, ZFS has historically been
troublesome.


These are nothing more than a few data points. Please do not bother
with the "then become a maintainer" response. It is not that I do not
appreciate the efforts of others but that statement is a BS response,
you know it, and I'll simply delete your message.



___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Jonathan Chen]

On 4 December 2017 at 13:56, Thomas Mueller  wrote:

> I can still see possible use for portmaster in that something has to be used 
> to build synth or poudriere from source.

You don't need portmaster for that. You just need make(1).
-- 
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Thomas Mueller]

from Chris H:

> port-mgmt/poudriere gets the attention, and maintenance that it does, because
> it was created, and is maintained by someone with a commit bit (bdrewery).
> port-mgmt/synth was also created, and maintained by someone with a commit bit
> (jmarino).
> However, John's commit bit was taken away. While I'll not comment as to why,
> nor elaborate on my personal stand/feelings regarding that action. I can say
> that he has superseded synth with an application called Ravenports[1].
> I also attempted to take on ports-mgmt/portmaster early on in my endeavors
> as a ports maintainer. However, that experience also didn't go well, and I'll
> not bog this thread down with the details. My main intent for my reply, is
> simply to indicate as to why history has been the way it has regarding the
> other ports management utilities, and to indicate there is another possible
> solution, that was not previously mentioned. That I thought you (and others?)
> might be interested in. :)
 
> [1]
> https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports
> https://github.com/jrmarino/ravenadm
> https://github.com/jrmarino/ravensource

I was curious enough to take a look at those Github pages.

Still too early for me to judge.

I see the supported target systems are very limited, but there is a limit to 
what one person alone can do.

I believe portmaster and portupgrade work or worked on all supported versions 
and architectures of FreeBSD, but synth is limited.

Does poudriere work on all supported versions and architectures of FreeBSD?  I 
looked in the Makefile and found no such limitation.

I can still see possible use for portmaster in that something has to be used to 
build synth or poudriere from source.


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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Thomas Mueller]

Sorry to be sending this again, but I forgot to update the subject line the 
first time.

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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/3/2017 5:04 PM, Carmel NY wrote:

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 3:46 PM, Chris H stated:

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:53:58 + "FreeBSD Ports ML"  
po...@freebsd.org> said

On Saturday, December 2, 2017 5:40 AM, Stari Karp stated:

On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 01:12 +, Ben Woods wrote:

Hi Carmel,

My understanding is that poudriere is the only package building
system that is officially supported by the portmgr, apart from raw

make.

There are many other nice ports building tools contributed by the
community, which each have their niche market, but the maintenance
of those tools is a community responsibility also.

The announcement of impending flavors and breakage of package
building infrastructure that doesn’t support it was some time ago
(I believe at least 6 months), with a number of reminders since
then. If a community


Yes, 6 months but IMO ports maintainers have still 2 or three months.
They "pushed" flavors out to early. I do not why.

Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning
how to use an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a
relatively small home network.

I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working
correctly. If not it might be time for me to look at another OS for my
network.

Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
"portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has

done

a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which
brings me to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before
that becomes history also?

port-mgmt/poudriere gets the attention, and maintenance that it does,
because it was created, and is maintained by someone with a commit bit
(bdrewery).
port-mgmt/synth was also created, and maintained by someone with a
commit bit (jmarino).
However, John's commit bit was taken away. While I'll not comment as to
why, nor elaborate on my personal stand/feelings regarding that action. I can
say that he has superseded synth with an application called Ravenports[1].
I also attempted to take on ports-mgmt/portmaster early on in my
endeavors as a ports maintainer. However, that experience also didn't go
well, and I'll not bog this thread down with the details. My main intent for my
reply, is simply to indicate as to why history has been the way it has regarding
the other ports management utilities, and to indicate there is another
possible solution, that was not previously mentioned. That I thought you
(and others?) might be interested in. :)

I just checked out < 
https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports/wiki/quickstart-freebsd>
and < http://ravenports.ironwolf.systems/> and I have to admit that I am 
interested.
I am wondering if it will ever get accepted into the ports system.



No wayThey hate John around here.
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/3/2017 3:46 PM, Chris H wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:53:58 + "FreeBSD Ports ML" 
 said



On Saturday, December 2, 2017 5:40 AM, Stari Karp stated:
> On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 01:12 +, Ben Woods wrote:
> > Hi Carmel,
> >
> > My understanding is that poudriere is the only package building 
system

> > that is officially supported by the portmgr, apart from raw make.
> >
> > There are many other nice ports building tools contributed by the
> > community, which each have their niche market, but the 
maintenance of

> > those tools is a community responsibility also.
> >
> > The announcement of impending flavors and breakage of package 
building
> > infrastructure that doesn’t support it was some time ago (I 
believe at
> > least 6 months), with a number of reminders since then. If a 
community

> >
> Yes, 6 months but IMO ports maintainers have still 2 or three months.
> They "pushed" flavors out to early. I do not why.

Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning 
how to

use
an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a relatively small home
network.

I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working 
correctly. If

not
it might be time for me to look at another OS for my network.

Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
"portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has done a
pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which 
brings me
to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before that 
becomes

history also?
port-mgmt/poudriere gets the attention, and maintenance that it does, 
because
it was created, and is maintained by someone with a commit bit 
(bdrewery).
port-mgmt/synth was also created, and maintained by someone with a 
commit bit

(jmarino).
However, John's commit bit was taken away. While I'll not comment as 
to why,
nor elaborate on my personal stand/feelings regarding that action. I 
can say

that he has superseded synth with an application called Ravenports[1].
I also attempted to take on ports-mgmt/portmaster early on in my 
endeavors
as a ports maintainer. However, that experience also didn't go well, 
and I'll
not bog this thread down with the details. My main intent for my 
reply, is
simply to indicate as to why history has been the way it has regarding 
the
other ports management utilities, and to indicate there is another 
possible
solution, that was not previously mentioned. That I thought you (and 
others?)

might be interested in. :)

[1]
https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports
https://github.com/jrmarino/ravenadm
https://github.com/jrmarino/ravensource


--
Carmel


--Chris



Had a look at Ravenports.  Thanks for the info.  It looks a lot like and 
rpm spec file.
If that thing really works, I can get behind it.  It look like  what the 
ports system should have been.


___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/3/2017 3:07 PM, Steven Hartland wrote:

Come on guys you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Yes I got caught out by flavours too, but it was quickly fixed and it 
adds a much needed feature which will make ports and associated tools 
better at the end of the day.


People really seem to miss the point that there are only finite 
resources and as an open source project that depends on people 
volunteering their time to add new features and maintain tools.


A number of the messages to this thread really don’t seem to 
appreciate that and they come across very poorly.


Sure it would it be nice if everyone’s favourite tool was always 
maintained in good time but that can’t always be the case, however if 
anyone really wants something, they can chip in and make it happen, 
thats the beauty of open source projects.


For those who are considering migrating to something else, would your 
time not be better spent chipping in to help?




Not really, you are still left with current hardware not being supported.

When we adopted poudriere at work, it really enabled us to make much 
quicker progress than we had been able to do with portmaster, so for 
those that havent tried it its well worth a shot if your previous 
favourite tool hasn’t been updated yet.




Also if I was to update the "other tools" would it be incorperated into 
the ports or would all the work be for nothing?


___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/3/2017 11:56 AM, Adam Weinberger wrote:

On 3 Dec, 2017, at 7:55, Baho Utot  wrote:



On 12/02/17 18:31, Adam Weinberger wrote:

On 2 Dec, 2017, at 13:41, Baho Utot  wrote:


On 12/2/2017 1:43 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:53:58AM +, Carmel NY wrote:

Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
"portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent.

That's one possible explanation.  Or, as Occam's Razor suggests, they
continue to try to modernize the Ports Collection, despite obstacles
(including stale codebases and stubborn maintainers).

I'll admit some of the transitions have been pretty rough.  But when
you go back and look at Ports as of e.g. FreeBSD 4, there have been a
lot of good changes -- including some which were necessary due to sheer
scale.

If we had stayed with what we had then, the whole thing would have
collapsed by now.

mcl
___


What you have noe is not that great either.  When is base going to be 
packed.ie something that makes sense and works?

You seem very angry about things breaking in HEAD, Baho. Things break in HEAD 
sometimes. This is why we recommend that end-users who can't have breakages, or 
users who depend on undeveloped tools, stay on the quarterly branch. Portmaster 
works perfectly on quarterly. Always has.
Everyone understands that poudriere isn't for everybody---Steve Kargl outlined 
a pretty classic example of a workflow and system that aren't amenable to 
poudriere. We've asked repeatedly for people to work on portmaster. Far more 
people complain about it breaking than put in ANY effort to fix it.
HEAD is for development. You have to tolerate breakage on HEAD, and participate 
in fixing things, otherwise you need to switch to the quarterly branches.
# Adam

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.

If you don't use HEAD, then I fail to see how flavours have wronged you. Synth 
now supports flavours, and quarterly works exactly as it did a week ago.

Either way, a scratch built Linux sounds like a great alternative to FreeBSD, 
which is terrible at best.

# Adam




well I can at least count on it to work and with current hardware to boot.

___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 3 Dec, 2017, at 14:31, Michelle Sullivan  wrote:
> 
> Adam Weinberger wrote:
>> 
>> You seem very angry about things breaking in HEAD, Baho. Things break in 
>> HEAD sometimes. This is why we recommend that end-users who can't have 
>> breakages, or users who depend on undeveloped tools, stay on the quarterly 
>> branch. Portmaster works perfectly on quarterly. Always has.
>> 
> 
> Quarterly is just a frozen HEAD with no/minute chances of security patches or 
> other changes... why would you want to be there?  I couldn't even get someone 
> to patch a security issue before the pkg_*->pkgng change..  was patched 4 
> days later despite having the patch in the bug before... and despite asking 
> for the patch to be put in the quarterly they didn't either.  One continues 
> to watch the exodus.

The MFH process was very complicated at first, and many committers didn't 
participate in it. Now it's largely automated and expected of all ports 
committers. The quarterly branches these days receive essentially all security 
fixes and most build fixes. As with all things FreeBSD, it's a best-effort 
process.

Quarterly is mostly static, and receives no unnecessary updates. It also 
receives no known breakages. That's the tradeoff between it and head.

We do the best we can, and if things get missed it's because we need more 
community involvement. If you can't handle the flux of HEAD, stay on quarterly. 
If you need the cutting-edge, use HEAD. As you noted, we are strained for 
resources to keep quarterly going; we simply don't have the ability to provide 
another in-between level.

# 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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Mark Millard]

Carmel NY carmel_ny at outlook.com wrote on
Sun Dec 3 22:04:34 UTC 2017 :

> I just checked out < 
> https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports/wiki/quickstart-freebsd > 
> and < http://ravenports.ironwolf.systems/ > and I have to admit that I am 
> interested. 
> I am wondering if it will ever get accepted into the ports system.

I'll note that https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports says:

Official Website
Please visit http://ravenports.ironwolf.systems for additional and current 
information.


Ravenports has its own repository: Unlike ports-mgmt/synth,
Ravenports is not based on the FreeBSD ports tree in FreeBSD.
So switching is more than a tool change. The list of available
ports is visible at:

http://ravenports.ironwolf.systems/catalog/

It said "2,356 entries" at the time I looked. They are
just getting started.


It looks like for those not on x86-64/amd64 and aarch64
will possibly be out of range for Ravenports. Also some
*BSD's may be as well.

Details:
Extracting some text from the Supported Platforms area
of the http://ravenports.ironwolf.systems/ page. . .
(Track by looking at the original page.)

. . .
For the core developers, the main architectures targeted are the x86_64 and ARM 
Aarch64.
New architecture support from serious contributors capable of performing the 
initial
bootstrap and periodic quality-assurance builds of the entire Ravenports tree 
will be
accepted into the project.

Long Term
Support increasingly unlikely
• Darwin/Mac OSX/x86_64
• OpenBSD/amd64
• NetBSD/amd64
• i386 (Linux and *BSD)

Short Term
Platform support planned
• Solaris 10+ / Illumos
• FreeBSD/ARM64
• Linux/AArch64

Current
Currently supported platforms
• DragonFly 4.9 and later
• FreeBSD/amd64 Release 11 and later
• Linux/x86-64 (glib 2.6.32-based)



(I listed the contents of the 3 boxes
in right-box to left-box order.)

===
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Chris H]

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 22:04:15 + "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>" 
 said


On Sunday, December 3, 2017 3:46 PM, Chris H stated:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:53:58 + "FreeBSD Ports ML" 
> po...@freebsd.org> said
> > On Saturday, December 2, 2017 5:40 AM, Stari Karp stated:
> > > On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 01:12 +, Ben Woods wrote:
> > > > Hi Carmel,
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that poudriere is the only package building
> > > > system that is officially supported by the portmgr, apart from raw
> make.
> > > >
> > > > There are many other nice ports building tools contributed by the
> > > > community, which each have their niche market, but the maintenance
> > > > of those tools is a community responsibility also.
> > > >
> > > > The announcement of impending flavors and breakage of package
> > > > building infrastructure that doesn’t support it was some time ago
> > > > (I believe at least 6 months), with a number of reminders since
> > > > then. If a community
> > > >
> > > Yes, 6 months but IMO ports maintainers have still 2 or three months.
> > > They "pushed" flavors out to early. I do not why.
> >
> > Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning
> > how to use an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a
> > relatively small home network.
> >
> > I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working
> > correctly. If not it might be time for me to look at another OS for my
> > network.
> >
> > Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
> > "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
> done
> > a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which
> > brings me to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before
> > that becomes history also?
> port-mgmt/poudriere gets the attention, and maintenance that it does,
> because it was created, and is maintained by someone with a commit bit
> (bdrewery).
> port-mgmt/synth was also created, and maintained by someone with a
> commit bit (jmarino).
> However, John's commit bit was taken away. While I'll not comment as to
> why, nor elaborate on my personal stand/feelings regarding that action. I
> can
> say that he has superseded synth with an application called Ravenports[1].
> I also attempted to take on ports-mgmt/portmaster early on in my
> endeavors as a ports maintainer. However, that experience also didn't go
> well, and I'll not bog this thread down with the details. My main intent for
> my
> reply, is simply to indicate as to why history has been the way it has
> regarding
> the other ports management utilities, and to indicate there is another
> possible solution, that was not previously mentioned. That I thought you
> (and others?) might be interested in. :)

I just checked out <
https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports/wiki/quickstart-freebsd> 
and < http://ravenports.ironwolf.systems/> and I have to admit that I am
interested. 
I am wondering if it will ever get accepted into the ports system.

Are you looking to become Maintainer for it? :)

Honestly, I'd have already volunteered. But I'm between hardware right
now. My dev box died, and I haven't yet decided on the hardware I want to
get to replace it. So unless someone else decides to take it on before I
do. I'll push it into the ports system.

tl,dr;
Yes. As soon as I, or someone else volunteers to do so. Maybe you? :)


--
Carmel


--Chris


___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Michelle Sullivan]

Adam Weinberger wrote:


You seem very angry about things breaking in HEAD, Baho. Things break in HEAD 
sometimes. This is why we recommend that end-users who can't have breakages, or 
users who depend on undeveloped tools, stay on the quarterly branch. Portmaster 
works perfectly on quarterly. Always has.



Quarterly is just a frozen HEAD with no/minute chances of security 
patches or other changes... why would you want to be there?  I couldn't 
even get someone to patch a security issue before the pkg_*->pkgng 
change..  was patched 4 days later despite having the patch in the bug 
before... and despite asking for the patch to be put in the quarterly 
they didn't either.  One continues to watch the exodus.


Michelle
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Carmel NY]

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 3:46 PM, Chris H stated:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:53:58 + "FreeBSD Ports ML"  
> po...@freebsd.org> said
> > On Saturday, December 2, 2017 5:40 AM, Stari Karp stated:
> > > On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 01:12 +, Ben Woods wrote:
> > > > Hi Carmel,
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that poudriere is the only package building
> > > > system that is officially supported by the portmgr, apart from raw
> make.
> > > >
> > > > There are many other nice ports building tools contributed by the
> > > > community, which each have their niche market, but the maintenance
> > > > of those tools is a community responsibility also.
> > > >
> > > > The announcement of impending flavors and breakage of package
> > > > building infrastructure that doesn’t support it was some time ago
> > > > (I believe at least 6 months), with a number of reminders since
> > > > then. If a community
> > > >
> > > Yes, 6 months but IMO ports maintainers have still 2 or three months.
> > > They "pushed" flavors out to early. I do not why.
> >
> > Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning
> > how to use an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a
> > relatively small home network.
> >
> > I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working
> > correctly. If not it might be time for me to look at another OS for my
> > network.
> >
> > Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
> > "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
> done
> > a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which
> > brings me to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before
> > that becomes history also?
> port-mgmt/poudriere gets the attention, and maintenance that it does,
> because it was created, and is maintained by someone with a commit bit
> (bdrewery).
> port-mgmt/synth was also created, and maintained by someone with a
> commit bit (jmarino).
> However, John's commit bit was taken away. While I'll not comment as to
> why, nor elaborate on my personal stand/feelings regarding that action. I can
> say that he has superseded synth with an application called Ravenports[1].
> I also attempted to take on ports-mgmt/portmaster early on in my
> endeavors as a ports maintainer. However, that experience also didn't go
> well, and I'll not bog this thread down with the details. My main intent for 
> my
> reply, is simply to indicate as to why history has been the way it has 
> regarding
> the other ports management utilities, and to indicate there is another
> possible solution, that was not previously mentioned. That I thought you
> (and others?) might be interested in. :)

I just checked out < 
https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports/wiki/quickstart-freebsd> 
and < http://ravenports.ironwolf.systems/> and I have to admit that I am 
interested. 
I am wondering if it will ever get accepted into the ports system.

-- 
Carmel


pgpseQLhdz4N4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Chris H]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:53:58 + "FreeBSD Ports ML" 
 said


On Saturday, December 2, 2017 5:40 AM, Stari Karp stated:
> On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 01:12 +, Ben Woods wrote:
> > Hi Carmel,
> >
> > My understanding is that poudriere is the only package building system
> > that is officially supported by the portmgr, apart from raw make.
> >
> > There are many other nice ports building tools contributed by the
> > community, which each have their niche market, but the maintenance of
> > those tools is a community responsibility also.
> >
> > The announcement of impending flavors and breakage of package building
> > infrastructure that doesn’t support it was some time ago (I believe at
> > least 6 months), with a number of reminders since then. If a community
> >
> Yes, 6 months but IMO ports maintainers have still 2 or three months.
> They "pushed" flavors out to early. I do not why.

Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning how to
use
an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a relatively small home
network.

I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working correctly. If
not
it might be time for me to look at another OS for my network.

Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
"portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has done a
pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which brings me
to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before that becomes
history also?

port-mgmt/poudriere gets the attention, and maintenance that it does, because
it was created, and is maintained by someone with a commit bit (bdrewery).
port-mgmt/synth was also created, and maintained by someone with a commit bit
(jmarino).
However, John's commit bit was taken away. While I'll not comment as to why,
nor elaborate on my personal stand/feelings regarding that action. I can say
that he has superseded synth with an application called Ravenports[1].
I also attempted to take on ports-mgmt/portmaster early on in my endeavors
as a ports maintainer. However, that experience also didn't go well, and I'll
not bog this thread down with the details. My main intent for my reply, is
simply to indicate as to why history has been the way it has regarding the
other ports management utilities, and to indicate there is another possible
solution, that was not previously mentioned. That I thought you (and others?)
might be interested in. :)

[1]
https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports
https://github.com/jrmarino/ravenadm
https://github.com/jrmarino/ravensource


--
Carmel


--Chris


___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Steven Hartland]

Come on guys you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Yes I got caught out by flavours too, but it was quickly fixed and it adds
a much needed feature which will make ports and associated tools better at
the end of the day.

People really seem to miss the point that there are only finite resources
and as an open source project that depends on people volunteering their
time to add new features and maintain tools.

A number of the messages to this thread really don’t seem to appreciate
that and they come across very poorly.

Sure it would it be nice if everyone’s favourite tool was always maintained
in good time but that can’t always be the case, however if anyone really
wants something, they can chip in and make it happen, thats the beauty of
open source projects.

For those who are considering migrating to something else, would your time
not be better spent chipping in to help?

When we adopted poudriere at work, it really enabled us to make much
quicker progress than we had been able to do with portmaster, so for those
that havent tried it its well worth a shot if your previous favourite tool
hasn’t been updated yet.

  Regards
  Steve
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 3 Dec, 2017, at 7:55, Baho Utot  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/02/17 18:31, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>>> On 2 Dec, 2017, at 13:41, Baho Utot  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/2/2017 1:43 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
 On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:53:58AM +, Carmel NY wrote:
> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
> done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent.
 That's one possible explanation.  Or, as Occam's Razor suggests, they
 continue to try to modernize the Ports Collection, despite obstacles
 (including stale codebases and stubborn maintainers).
 
 I'll admit some of the transitions have been pretty rough.  But when
 you go back and look at Ports as of e.g. FreeBSD 4, there have been a
 lot of good changes -- including some which were necessary due to sheer
 scale.
 
 If we had stayed with what we had then, the whole thing would have
 collapsed by now.
 
 mcl
 ___
 
>>> 
>>> What you have noe is not that great either.  When is base going to be 
>>> packed.ie something that makes sense and works?
>> You seem very angry about things breaking in HEAD, Baho. Things break in 
>> HEAD sometimes. This is why we recommend that end-users who can't have 
>> breakages, or users who depend on undeveloped tools, stay on the quarterly 
>> branch. Portmaster works perfectly on quarterly. Always has.
>> Everyone understands that poudriere isn't for everybody---Steve Kargl 
>> outlined a pretty classic example of a workflow and system that aren't 
>> amenable to poudriere. We've asked repeatedly for people to work on 
>> portmaster. Far more people complain about it breaking than put in ANY 
>> effort to fix it.
>> HEAD is for development. You have to tolerate breakage on HEAD, and 
>> participate in fixing things, otherwise you need to switch to the quarterly 
>> branches.
>> # Adam
> 
> 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.

If you don't use HEAD, then I fail to see how flavours have wronged you. Synth 
now supports flavours, and quarterly works exactly as it did a week ago.

Either way, a scratch built Linux sounds like a great alternative to FreeBSD, 
which is terrible at best.

# 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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/02/17 18:31, Adam Weinberger wrote:

On 2 Dec, 2017, at 13:41, Baho Utot  wrote:


On 12/2/2017 1:43 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:53:58AM +, Carmel NY wrote:

Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
"portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent.

That's one possible explanation.  Or, as Occam's Razor suggests, they
continue to try to modernize the Ports Collection, despite obstacles
(including stale codebases and stubborn maintainers).

I'll admit some of the transitions have been pretty rough.  But when
you go back and look at Ports as of e.g. FreeBSD 4, there have been a
lot of good changes -- including some which were necessary due to sheer
scale.

If we had stayed with what we had then, the whole thing would have
collapsed by now.

mcl
___



What you have noe is not that great either.  When is base going to be 
packed.ie something that makes sense and works?


You seem very angry about things breaking in HEAD, Baho. Things break in HEAD 
sometimes. This is why we recommend that end-users who can't have breakages, or 
users who depend on undeveloped tools, stay on the quarterly branch. Portmaster 
works perfectly on quarterly. Always has.

Everyone understands that poudriere isn't for everybody---Steve Kargl outlined 
a pretty classic example of a workflow and system that aren't amenable to 
poudriere. We've asked repeatedly for people to work on portmaster. Far more 
people complain about it breaking than put in ANY effort to fix it.

HEAD is for development. You have to tolerate breakage on HEAD, and participate 
in fixing things, otherwise you need to switch to the quarterly branches.

# Adam




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.


___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> Give jrmarino some time, he is obviously working on it:
> https://github.com/jrmarino/synth/commit/35a664ac24b5cf6aedb2d0ae30594e5dc95c93d5

synth 2.00 which supports FLAVORS, hit the ports tree a short time ago.

-- 
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Mark Millard]

Rozhuk Ivan rozhuk.im at gmail.com wrote on
Sat Dec 2 18:18:39 UTC 2017 :

> I dont want poudriere because I dont need ZFS, jails and other crap on my 
> system.
> I dont want to play system administrator: keep and admin build servers at 
> home/work.
> 
> I just want update from source all my ports, make packages, and on other
> computers run portmaster to update from these packages on nfs share.
> Minimum overhead.
> 
> synth - at least require specific depencies.

Poudriere certainly has more space and time use
in its way of operation. (The useful vs. overhead
is status is context dependent.)

But, I did just recently experiment with a from-scratch
try-to-build-everything ( poudriere bulk -C -a ) on
a system configuration that is just UFS based. It worked
okay. (UFS vs. ZFS has various tradeoffs for such. For
now I'm using UFS in this large-use context.)

I use UFS with poudriere-devel on a BPI-M3 armv7 board
and a Pine64+ 2GB board as well (for vastly fewer ports).
There is 2 GiBytes of RAM in each of those. For them I
use PARALLEL_JOBS=1 to be more like
ports-mgmt/portmaster and its one-builder status.

By the time indirect dependencies are traced, building
and then using ports-mgmt/poudriere-devel does
require:

misc/freebsd-release-manifests
security/ca_root_nss

where the indirect dependency status is:

security/ca_root_nss
lang/perl5.24

So normally the devel/poudriere and those
3 other ports, plus ports-mgmt/pkg itself.

I've been able to establish such a context
on powerpc64, powerpc, armv7 (previously
armv6), aarch64, and amd64. For
ports-mgmt/synth only the last two of the
5 had been directly possible.

(Last I knew aarch64 was no longer buildable,
due to the initial-binary-bootstrap stage of
the compiler toolchain involved vs. later
FreeBSD header changes.)

Note: I have experimented with
ports-mgmt/synth in the past, including
on the Pine64+ 2 GB (aarch64) before
building synth and the toolchain it is
based on was broken. But I prefer an more
uniform environment instead of using distinct
techniques. Other than that, the experiment
was interesting and worked fine.


I do not claim the following is a typical
context or that it would apply to your
specific context. But it does apply to my
context.

ports-mgmt/poudiere-devel does allow:

emulators/qemu-user-static (optional: atypical?)

For enabling potential cross builds targeting
armv7, arrch64, and possibly some others. This
leads to more dependencies when selected:

emulators/qemu-user-static (optional)
(flattened, sorted list)
converters/libiconv
devel/bison
devel/gettext-runtime
devel/gettext-tools
devel/glib20
devel/gmake
devel/libffi
devel/m4
devel/p5-Locale-gettext
devel/pcre
devel/pkgconf
devel/readline
lang/perl5.24
lang/python2
lang/python27
misc/help2man
print/indexinfo
print/texinfo

I have done amd64 -> armv7 and aarch64
cross builds of ports via poudriere.

As I remember powerpc64 is supposed to be
able to use emulators/qemu-user-static and
so could target armv7 or aarch64, although
I've not tested such.

(qemu-user-static does not work for emulating
powerpc64 or powerpc FreeBSD operation
sufficiently, so, I've not used those
types of targets for cross builds.)


I do modify poudriere's jail.sh a little to
allow a more extreme form of (for example):

A) poudriere jail -c -j jailArmV7 -a arm.armv7 -x \
   -m null \
   -M /usr/obj/DESTDIRs/armv7-installworld-poud \
   -S /usr/src -v 12.0-CURRENT

   (jail creation with some native cross-build
   tools and tied to my local /usr/src/ materials .)

B) poudriere ports -c -m null -M /usr/ports

where I've prebuilt world and appropriately installed
/usr/obj/DESTDIRs/armv7-installworld-poud . The bulk
builds produce armv7 materials for that jail.

I have put copies of such world builds on the
target device and used it with poudriere on that
device as well. Thus the BPI-M3 did not have to
do its own buildworld for poudriere use in its
jail when I tried local port builds via poudriere.

===
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 2 Dec, 2017, at 13:41, Baho Utot  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/2/2017 1:43 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:53:58AM +, Carmel NY wrote:
>>> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
>>> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
>>> done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent.
>> That's one possible explanation.  Or, as Occam's Razor suggests, they
>> continue to try to modernize the Ports Collection, despite obstacles
>> (including stale codebases and stubborn maintainers).
>> 
>> I'll admit some of the transitions have been pretty rough.  But when
>> you go back and look at Ports as of e.g. FreeBSD 4, there have been a
>> lot of good changes -- including some which were necessary due to sheer
>> scale.
>> 
>> If we had stayed with what we had then, the whole thing would have
>> collapsed by now.
>> 
>> mcl
>> ___
>> 
> 
> What you have noe is not that great either.  When is base going to be 
> packed.ie something that makes sense and works?

You seem very angry about things breaking in HEAD, Baho. Things break in HEAD 
sometimes. This is why we recommend that end-users who can't have breakages, or 
users who depend on undeveloped tools, stay on the quarterly branch. Portmaster 
works perfectly on quarterly. Always has.

Everyone understands that poudriere isn't for everybody---Steve Kargl outlined 
a pretty classic example of a workflow and system that aren't amenable to 
poudriere. We've asked repeatedly for people to work on portmaster. Far more 
people complain about it breaking than put in ANY effort to fix it.

HEAD is for development. You have to tolerate breakage on HEAD, and participate 
in fixing things, otherwise you need to switch to the quarterly branches.

# 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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/2/2017 1:43 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:53:58AM +, Carmel NY wrote:

Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
"portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent.

That's one possible explanation.  Or, as Occam's Razor suggests, they
continue to try to modernize the Ports Collection, despite obstacles
(including stale codebases and stubborn maintainers).

I'll admit some of the transitions have been pretty rough.  But when
you go back and look at Ports as of e.g. FreeBSD 4, there have been a
lot of good changes -- including some which were necessary due to sheer
scale.

If we had stayed with what we had then, the whole thing would have
collapsed by now.

mcl
___



What you have noe is not that great either.  When is base going to be 
packed.ie something that makes sense and works?

___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Mark Linimon]

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:53:58AM +, Carmel NY wrote:
> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
> done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent.

That's one possible explanation.  Or, as Occam's Razor suggests, they
continue to try to modernize the Ports Collection, despite obstacles
(including stale codebases and stubborn maintainers).

I'll admit some of the transitions have been pretty rough.  But when
you go back and look at Ports as of e.g. FreeBSD 4, there have been a
lot of good changes -- including some which were necessary due to sheer
scale.

If we had stayed with what we had then, the whole thing would have
collapsed by now.

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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Rozhuk Ivan]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 09:58:15 -0800
Steve Kargl  wrote:

> I have a laptop with 664 installed packages.  It has 6.4 GB 
> of free diskspace and 3.5 GB of available memory.  It is the
> only i686 system that I have and it is used to develop and
> test all of the libm code that I contribute to FreeBSD.
> /usr/src, /usr/obj, and /usr/ports/distfiles are symlinked
> to directories on a USB 2.0 external drive.  Using `poudriere
> bulk` may strain the available resources when constructing jails,
> storing built packages, and then going throught the actual
> upgrading process; whereas `portmaster -Byd` just worked.
> 
 
+1
I dont want poudriere because I dont need ZFS, jails and other crap on my 
system.
I dont want to play system administrator: keep and admin build servers at 
home/work.

I just want update from source all my ports, make packages, and on other
computers run portmaster to update from these packages on nfs share.
Minimum overhead.

synth - at least require specific depencies.
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Steve Kargl]

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 01:04:12PM +0100, Vlad K. wrote:
> On 2017-12-02 12:53, Carmel NY wrote:
> > 
> > I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working 
> > correctly. If not
> > it might be time for me to look at another OS for my network.
> 
> 
> This has been mentioned several times as a "solution", but I really 
> don't understand it. What other OS would be comparatively equal in this 
> functionality? Other than Gentoo, you'd have hard time compiling 
> individual packages, in a binary-precompiled-packages-based OS. Sure 
> there are source DEBs or RPMs, but keeping track of custom built ones is 
> not as easy as flipping a few options and running `poudriere bulk` every 
> now and then.
> 
> Which then means, you can already use binary-precompiled packages here 
> in FreeBSD. Even more so now with FLAVORS, as the packages will be built 
> with some common option variations which would match exactly what's 
> done, say in Debian based distros.
> 
> Honest question, I really am interested.
> 

I have a laptop with 664 installed packages.  It has 6.4 GB 
of free diskspace and 3.5 GB of available memory.  It is the
only i686 system that I have and it is used to develop and
test all of the libm code that I contribute to FreeBSD.
/usr/src, /usr/obj, and /usr/ports/distfiles are symlinked
to directories on a USB 2.0 external drive.  Using `poudriere
bulk` may strain the available resources when constructing jails,
storing built packages, and then going throught the actual
upgrading process; whereas `portmaster -Byd` just worked.


-- 
Steve
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Carmel NY]

On  Saturday, December 2, 2017 8:01 AM, Baho Utot stated:
> On 12/02/17 07:23, Charlie Li wrote:
> > On 02/12/2017 06:53, Carmel NY wrote:
> >> Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning
> >> how to use an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a relatively 
> >> small
> home network.
> >>
> > poudriere is not industrial-sized at all. Sure, it has many features
> > that I don't exactly use, but it's certainly not industrial-sized. I
> > had the same impression of a monstrosity before I started using it
> > myself, on my *laptop* of all things.
> >> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
> >> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
> >> done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent.
> >> Which brings me to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long
> >> before that becomes history also?
> >>
> > portmgr officially maintains and promotes poudriere. It's not going
> > anywhere until they say it is.
> >
> 
> Sorry tired of playing games,  leaving FreeBSD as we speak

I am going to give them a chance to get synth back up and running.  If not, 
then I am out of her too.

-- 
Carmel

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when 
you do it blows your whole leg off.

___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/02/17 07:23, Charlie Li wrote:

On 02/12/2017 06:53, Carmel NY wrote:

Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning how to use
an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a relatively small home network.


poudriere is not industrial-sized at all. Sure, it has many features
that I don't exactly use, but it's certainly not industrial-sized. I had
the same impression of a monstrosity before I started using it myself,
on my *laptop* of all things.

Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
"portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has done a
pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which brings me
to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before that becomes
history also?


portmgr officially maintains and promotes poudriere. It's not going
anywhere until they say it is.



Sorry tired of playing games,  leaving FreeBSD as we speak
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Baho Utot]

On 12/02/17 07:04, Vlad K. wrote:

On 2017-12-02 12:53, Carmel NY wrote:


I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working 
correctly. If not

it might be time for me to look at another OS for my network.



This has been mentioned several times as a "solution", but I really 
don't understand it. What other OS would be comparatively equal in this 
functionality? Other than Gentoo, 


Arch linux, makes FreeBSD look like the childs play it is


you'd have hard time compiling
individual packages, in a binary-precompiled-packages-based OS. Sure 
there are source DEBs or RPMs, but keeping track of custom built ones is 
not as easy as flipping a few options and running `poudriere bulk` every 
now and then.


Which then means, you can already use binary-precompiled packages here 
in FreeBSD. Even more so now with FLAVORS, as the packages will be built 
with some common option variations which would match exactly what's 
done, say in Debian based distros.


Honest question, I really am interested.



___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Charlie Li]

On 02/12/2017 06:53, Carmel NY wrote:
> Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning how to use
> an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a relatively small home 
> network.
> 
poudriere is not industrial-sized at all. Sure, it has many features
that I don't exactly use, but it's certainly not industrial-sized. I had
the same impression of a monstrosity before I started using it myself,
on my *laptop* of all things.
> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has done a
> pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which brings me
> to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before that becomes
> history also?
> 
portmgr officially maintains and promotes poudriere. It's not going
anywhere until they say it is.

-- 
Charlie Li
Can't think of a witty .sigline today…

(This email address is for mailing list use only;
replace local-part with vishwin for off-list communication)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Felix Hanley]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 09:59:33AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> First, welcome flavors. It has been badly needed for a while and is going
> to clean up a couple of messes that have been plaguing the port system for
> a long time.
> 
> Second, whither port msanagement tools? At least portmaster now appears
> dead. Any reason to expect it to be workable again? I have not tried synth
> with flavors, yet,.but I see noting committed to deal with them, so it
> looks like port management has devolved to raw "make" operations or
> poudriere. Am I missing some other option?

Give jrmarino some time, he is obviously working on it:
https://github.com/jrmarino/synth/commit/35a664ac24b5cf6aedb2d0ae30594e5dc95c93d5

-felix
___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Vlad K.]

On 2017-12-02 12:53, Carmel NY wrote:


I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working 
correctly. If not

it might be time for me to look at another OS for my network.



This has been mentioned several times as a "solution", but I really 
don't understand it. What other OS would be comparatively equal in this 
functionality? Other than Gentoo, you'd have hard time compiling 
individual packages, in a binary-precompiled-packages-based OS. Sure 
there are source DEBs or RPMs, but keeping track of custom built ones is 
not as easy as flipping a few options and running `poudriere bulk` every 
now and then.


Which then means, you can already use binary-precompiled packages here 
in FreeBSD. Even more so now with FLAVORS, as the packages will be built 
with some common option variations which would match exactly what's 
done, say in Debian based distros.


Honest question, I really am interested.


--
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Carmel NY]

On Saturday, December 2, 2017 5:40 AM, Stari Karp stated:
> On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 01:12 +, Ben Woods wrote:
> > Hi Carmel,
> >
> > My understanding is that poudriere is the only package building system
> > that is officially supported by the portmgr, apart from raw make.
> >
> > There are many other nice ports building tools contributed by the
> > community, which each have their niche market, but the maintenance of
> > those tools is a community responsibility also.
> >
> > The announcement of impending flavors and breakage of package building
> > infrastructure that doesn’t support it was some time ago (I believe at
> > least 6 months), with a number of reminders since then. If a community
> >
> Yes, 6 months but IMO ports maintainers have still 2 or three months.
> They "pushed" flavors out to early. I do not why.

Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning how to use
an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a relatively small home network.

I am hoping that  someone can get "synth" back up and working correctly. If not
it might be time for me to look at another OS for my network.

Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
"portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has done a
pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which brings me
to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before that becomes
history also?

-- 
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Stari Karp]

On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 01:12 +, Ben Woods wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 at 2:36 am, Carmel NY 
> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > --
> > Carmel
> 
> 
> Hi Carmel,
> 
> My understanding is that poudriere is the only package building
> system that
> is officially supported by the portmgr, apart from raw make.
> 
> There are many other nice ports building tools contributed by the
> community, which each have their niche market, but the maintenance of
> those
> tools is a community responsibility also.
> 
> The announcement of impending flavors and breakage of package
> building
> infrastructure that doesn’t support it was some time ago (I believe
> at
> least 6 months), with a number of reminders since then. If a
> community
> 
Yes, 6 months but IMO ports maintainers have still 2 or three months.
They "pushed" flavors out to early. I do not why.

___
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Ben Woods]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 at 2:36 am, Carmel NY  wrote:

> > First, welcome flavors. It has been badly needed for a while and is
> going to
> > clean up a couple of messes that have been plaguing the port system for a
> > long time.
> >
> > Second, whither port msanagement tools? At least portmaster now appears
> > dead. Any reason to expect it to be workable again? I have not tried
> synth
> > with flavors, yet,.but I see noting committed to deal with them, so it
> looks
> > like port management has devolved to raw "make" operations or poudriere.
> > Am I missing some other option?
> >
> > I really with there ha been at least a days warning of the flavoring of
> python
> > so I could have set up to do tings a bit more smoothly.
> >
> > Some issues are still unclear. e.g. pygobject3 is orphaned. Since I have
> 23
> > ports that depend on py34-gobject3, I don't see deleting it as viable.
> pkg
> > shows no upgrade path... just "orphaned: devel/py3-gobject3". None of the
> > ports htat depend in it show that they need updates. I'm going to guess
> that I
> > can build the py-gobject3 port with FLAVOR=36 and that will fix a bunch
> of
> > stuff, but I am not really sure. If I rebuild that way, will I break any
> of the
> > ports that previously wanted ry34-gobject3? Don't know, but it will
> break my
> > entire desktop if it fails.
> >
> > I might mention that cython, compat10x, compat9x are also orphaned. This
> > looks pretty ugly. Are they really gone? Or re there flavor here, as
> well?
> > again, pkg gives no clues.
>
> Synth is failing since this change. I get the feeling that, as usually
> happens, nobody
> actually vetted this correctly.
>
> --
> Carmel


Hi Carmel,

My understanding is that poudriere is the only package building system that
is officially supported by the portmgr, apart from raw make.

There are many other nice ports building tools contributed by the
community, which each have their niche market, but the maintenance of those
tools is a community responsibility also.

The announcement of impending flavors and breakage of package building
infrastructure that doesn’t support it was some time ago (I believe at
least 6 months), with a number of reminders since then. If a community
developed and maintained package building tool does not support flavors, I
don’t believe that is the fault of portmgr. I don’t believe FreeBSD could
delay such an important feature to the ports tree any longer.

I welcome the introduction of flavors, think the timing was good (not
immediately before the new quarterly branch), and also hope someone steps
up to update the community maintained package building tools to support it
soon.

Thanks to all those involved in bringing flavors to the ports tree! This is
a great day.

Regards,
Ben

> --

--
From: Benjamin Woods
woods...@gmail.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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Carmel NY]

> First, welcome flavors. It has been badly needed for a while and is going to
> clean up a couple of messes that have been plaguing the port system for a
> long time.
> 
> Second, whither port msanagement tools? At least portmaster now appears
> dead. Any reason to expect it to be workable again? I have not tried synth
> with flavors, yet,.but I see noting committed to deal with them, so it looks
> like port management has devolved to raw "make" operations or poudriere.
> Am I missing some other option?
> 
> I really with there ha been at least a days warning of the flavoring of python
> so I could have set up to do tings a bit more smoothly.
> 
> Some issues are still unclear. e.g. pygobject3 is orphaned. Since I have 23
> ports that depend on py34-gobject3, I don't see deleting it as viable. pkg
> shows no upgrade path... just "orphaned: devel/py3-gobject3". None of the
> ports htat depend in it show that they need updates. I'm going to guess that I
> can build the py-gobject3 port with FLAVOR=36 and that will fix a bunch of
> stuff, but I am not really sure. If I rebuild that way, will I break any of 
> the
> ports that previously wanted ry34-gobject3? Don't know, but it will break my
> entire desktop if it fails.
> 
> I might mention that cython, compat10x, compat9x are also orphaned. This
> looks pretty ugly. Are they really gone? Or re there flavor here, as well?
> again, pkg gives no clues.

Synth is failing since this change. I get the feeling that, as usually happens, 
nobody
actually vetted this correctly.

-- 
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: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 1 Dec, 2017, at 10:59, Kevin Oberman  wrote:
> 
> First, welcome flavors. It has been badly needed for a while and is going
> to clean up a couple of messes that have been plaguing the port system for
> a long time.
> 
> Second, whither port msanagement tools? At least portmaster now appears
> dead. Any reason to expect it to be workable again? I have not tried synth
> with flavors, yet,.but I see noting committed to deal with them, so it
> looks like port management has devolved to raw "make" operations or
> poudriere. Am I missing some other option?

You asked some good questions in addition to the above, but I'll let others 
answer those. I want to specifically address the above question, because it 
will be asked many times in the near future (and again when 2018Q1 branches).

As discussed in multiple threads on this list, going back the better part of a 
year, portmaster is not actively developed. Multiple people have expressed 
interest in fixing it, but nobody has actually stepped up to do so. While I 
certainly hope that portmaster will be fixed to support flavours, there's no 
guarantee that that will ever happen. We've been begging people for a long time 
now to switch to poudriere for exactly this situation. I don't use synth 
myself, but I believe that it supports flavours. If I'm wrong about this, 
somebody please correct me.

So no, you're not missing some other option. Poudriere, synth, and raw make are 
the only ways to use the ports tree at this time. Again, I do hope that 
portmaster will be patched eventually, but for now it is broken. Anybody is 
free to work on it. tz@ maintains it and is your point of contact for 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"

Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

[Kevin Oberman]

First, welcome flavors. It has been badly needed for a while and is going
to clean up a couple of messes that have been plaguing the port system for
a long time.

Second, whither port msanagement tools? At least portmaster now appears
dead. Any reason to expect it to be workable again? I have not tried synth
with flavors, yet,.but I see noting committed to deal with them, so it
looks like port management has devolved to raw "make" operations or
poudriere. Am I missing some other option?

I really with there ha been at least a days warning of the flavoring of
python so I could have set up to do tings a bit more smoothly.

Some issues are still unclear. e.g. pygobject3 is orphaned. Since I have 23
ports that depend on py34-gobject3, I don't see deleting it as viable. pkg
shows no upgrade path... just "orphaned: devel/py3-gobject3". None of the
ports htat depend in it show that they need updates. I'm going to guess
that I can build the py-gobject3 port with FLAVOR=36 and that will fix a
bunch of stuff, but I am not really sure. If I rebuild that way, will I
break any of the ports that previously wanted ry34-gobject3? Don't know,
but it will break my entire desktop if it fails.

I might mention that cython, compat10x, compat9x are also orphaned. This
looks pretty ugly. Are they really gone? Or re there flavor here, as well?
again, pkg gives no clues.
--
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"