Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Sebastian Schwarz]

On 2017-12-10, Stefan Esser wrote:
> Debugging shell scripts is a lot of work, since you cannot
> single step through them.

There are a few shell debuggers:

- http://bashdb.sourceforge.net/
- https://github.com/rocky/kshdb/
- https://github.com/rocky/zshdb/

However none of them is for plain POSIX Bourne Shell.  But you
might be able to run the other shells in a appropriate
compatibility mode ("bash --posix" or "env POSIXLY_CORRECT=1
bash" for example).

I haven't use the debuggers extensively, so I don't know how
well they work.  But they might be of some use to you.
___
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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Matthieu Volat]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:33:25 +0100
Stefan Esser  wrote:

> Am 10.12.17 um 18:47 schrieb Matthieu Volat:
> > They do... but only if you commit and push something (even if it's only
> > a personnal clone). If you just keep the changes on your computer, there's
> > nothing.  
> The GitHub master version has changes, that are not yet in any release.

As someone involved in some projects, I do understand the differences between 
working trees and releases, this was specifically about helping developpement 
by being more communicative about it.

There's nothing in the commit tree 
() nor the networkd 
() as of now regarding this 
issue. I don't know for others, but this has led me to invest some time not 
knowing this was duplicate work.

> 
> This is irrelevant as long as FLAVOR support is missing in portmaster,
> since there is no version that fully supports flavors, right now.

Please understand I am not asking for a working release, I'm asking for a more 
transparent developpement process that would allow other people to more easily 
follow, familiarize themselves with and help in portmaster development...

> 
> > As much as I am defiant of github on certain aspects, I've found in quite
> > some occasion the discussion/comment system around pull requests quite 
> > nice.  
> 
> I'm working in FLAVOR support and I have a version that correctly builds
> the Python ports, that have been converted.
> 
> But I'm currently trying to understand, where the information that the
> ports is to be re-installed, gets lost. Debugging shell scripts is a lot
> of work, since you cannot single step through them. Portmaster does call
> itself recursively, which further complicates understanding and tracing
> the execution. (Besides, portmaster is a main program of 4300+ lines with
> functions sprinkled throughout the code. I have a local version, which
> breaks this large main program in named subroutines, which makes it much
> easier to understand the logic flow, but hides the actual changes when
> creating diffs. I have backported the FLAVOR changes to a portmaster
> version without those subroutines, to get the minimal functional patch,
> but now I'm fighting with the install vs. upgrade distinction being lost.)

You can however set the execution trace argument to produce a full log. I was 
under the impression that when encountering package@flavor, splitting was 
needed in a few places to match the port directory and then simply add 
-DFLAVOR=value to the MAKEFLAGS.

> 
> I can send you the current version in private mail (I do not want to spam
> the mail-list with a 120k+ shell script).

This is exactly why I thought a WIP branch or something of the like would be 
useful, unless you want to proceed alone without any feedback. But then again, 
I posted my own (naive) approach at the issue and it did not seems to provoke 
any feedback, so maybe I was a bit too much hopeful.





pgpxJRx4uqwwf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Stefan Esser]

Am 10.12.17 um 18:47 schrieb Matthieu Volat:
> They do... but only if you commit and push something (even if it's only
> a personnal clone). If you just keep the changes on your computer, there's
> nothing.
The GitHub master version has changes, that are not yet in any release.

This is irrelevant as long as FLAVOR support is missing in portmaster,
since there is no version that fully supports flavors, right now.

> As much as I am defiant of github on certain aspects, I've found in quite
> some occasion the discussion/comment system around pull requests quite nice.

I'm working in FLAVOR support and I have a version that correctly builds
the Python ports, that have been converted.

But I'm currently trying to understand, where the information that the
ports is to be re-installed, gets lost. Debugging shell scripts is a lot
of work, since you cannot single step through them. Portmaster does call
itself recursively, which further complicates understanding and tracing
the execution. (Besides, portmaster is a main program of 4300+ lines with
functions sprinkled throughout the code. I have a local version, which
breaks this large main program in named subroutines, which makes it much
easier to understand the logic flow, but hides the actual changes when
creating diffs. I have backported the FLAVOR changes to a portmaster
version without those subroutines, to get the minimal functional patch,
but now I'm fighting with the install vs. upgrade distinction being lost.)

I can send you the current version in private mail (I do not want to spam
the mail-list with a 120k+ shell script).

Regards, STefan
___
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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Matthieu Volat]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 02:23:10 -0800
"Chris H"  wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 10:25:17 +0100 "Matthieu Volat"  said
> 
> > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 14:18:28 +0100
> > Baptiste Daroussin  wrote:
> >   
> > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:13:09PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:  
> > > > Quoting Baptiste Daroussin  (from Thu, 7 Dec 2017  
> > > 14:54:27  
> > > > +0100):
> > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:49:45PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:  
> > > > >   
> > > > 
> > > > > > Alternatively, how would a FreeBSD committer like Stefan or
> > > > > > Torsten or me or whoever gain write access to
> > > > > > https://github.com/freebsd/portmaster/ so get some progress in
> > > > > > the official portmaster location and create a new release
> > > > > > (sorry my ignorance for github and how it works, I'm used to
> > > > > > CVS/SVN workflows)?
> > > > > 
> > > > > They just need to ask git admins to get access, I have already asked
> > > > > Stefan (not
> > > > > reply yet)
> > > > > 
> > > > > They can also ask me directly if they want given I am part of the git 
> > > > >  
> > > admins
> > > > 
> > > > And I see that I'm already part of the FreeBSD organisation on github, 
> > > > so  
> > > I  
> > > > should have access. So... currently portmaster is wild-wild-west  
> > > territory?  
> > > > No real owner, anyone willing to fix/improve is free to do so, and it's 
> > > > up
> > > > to each individual to wear his fireproof-suite (after flavours is 
> > > > settled  
> > > I  
> > > > would be interested to have a look at the local packages installation 
> > > > pull
> > > > request)?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The official maintainer is tz@ for now, he just handed the maintainership 
> > > to
> > > se@
> > > 
> > > As for push access for now, only git-admin (which I am part of) and 
> > > bdrewery
> > > (who use to maintain portmaster) have access. I'll be glad to give push 
> > > acces
> > > to
> > > more people.
> > > 
> > > For now I have pushed patches from Stefan in the repo (not the flavor
> > > support
> > > but the preliminary to it)
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > Bapt  
> > 
> > 
> > Would it be possible to have some page to track/show the changes/progress to
> > the code? For some times, we had a lot of "i'm working on it but behind
> > closed doors".
> > 
> > For that kind of tools, it would be nice to see the process of upgrading
> > portmaster (or any other tool for that matter) and get a bit more familiar
> > with the code.
> > 
> > Even a wip branch would be great to involve more people, and that way, 
> > people
> > would be a bit less in the dark, but that is just my 2 cents...  
> 
> Doesn't the GitHub activity graphs, diffs, and commit logs already provide
> this information? Or have I just misunderstood the question?
> 

They do... but only if you commit and push something (even if it's only a 
personnal clone). If you just keep the changes on your computer, there's 
nothing.

As much as I am defiant of github on certain aspects, I've found in quite some 
occasion the discussion/comment system around pull requests quite nice.

Regards,

--
Matthieu Volat 


pgperwcbvK5Dg.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Chris H]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 10:25:17 +0100 "Matthieu Volat"  said


On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 14:18:28 +0100
Baptiste Daroussin  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:13:09PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > Quoting Baptiste Daroussin  (from Thu, 7 Dec 2017
> 14:54:27
> > +0100):
> >   
> > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:49:45PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:  
> >   
> > > > Alternatively, how would a FreeBSD committer like Stefan or

> > > > Torsten or me or whoever gain write access to
> > > > https://github.com/freebsd/portmaster/ so get some progress in
> > > > the official portmaster location and create a new release
> > > > (sorry my ignorance for github and how it works, I'm used to
> > > > CVS/SVN workflows)?  
> > > 
> > > They just need to ask git admins to get access, I have already asked

> > > Stefan (not
> > > reply yet)
> > > 
> > > They can also ask me directly if they want given I am part of the git
> admins  
> > 
> > And I see that I'm already part of the FreeBSD organisation on github, so

> I
> > should have access. So... currently portmaster is wild-wild-west
> territory?
> > No real owner, anyone willing to fix/improve is free to do so, and it's up
> > to each individual to wear his fireproof-suite (after flavours is settled
> I
> > would be interested to have a look at the local packages installation pull
> > request)?
> >   
> 
> The official maintainer is tz@ for now, he just handed the maintainership to

> se@
> 
> As for push access for now, only git-admin (which I am part of) and bdrewery

> (who use to maintain portmaster) have access. I'll be glad to give push acces
> to
> more people.
> 
> For now I have pushed patches from Stefan in the repo (not the flavor

> support
> but the preliminary to it)
> 
> Best regards,

> Bapt


Would it be possible to have some page to track/show the changes/progress to
the code? For some times, we had a lot of "i'm working on it but behind
closed doors".

For that kind of tools, it would be nice to see the process of upgrading
portmaster (or any other tool for that matter) and get a bit more familiar
with the code.

Even a wip branch would be great to involve more people, and that way, people
would be a bit less in the dark, but that is just my 2 cents...


Doesn't the GitHub activity graphs, diffs, and commit logs already provide
this information? Or have I just misunderstood the question?

--Chris


Have a nice day,

--
Matthieu Volat 



___
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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Matthieu Volat]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 14:18:28 +0100
Baptiste Daroussin  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:13:09PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > Quoting Baptiste Daroussin  (from Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:54:27
> > +0100):
> >   
> > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:49:45PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:  
> >   
> > > > Alternatively, how would a FreeBSD committer like Stefan or
> > > > Torsten or me or whoever gain write access to
> > > > https://github.com/freebsd/portmaster/ so get some progress in
> > > > the official portmaster location and create a new release
> > > > (sorry my ignorance for github and how it works, I'm used to
> > > > CVS/SVN workflows)?  
> > > 
> > > They just need to ask git admins to get access, I have already asked
> > > Stefan (not
> > > reply yet)
> > > 
> > > They can also ask me directly if they want given I am part of the git 
> > > admins  
> > 
> > And I see that I'm already part of the FreeBSD organisation on github, so I
> > should have access. So... currently portmaster is wild-wild-west territory?
> > No real owner, anyone willing to fix/improve is free to do so, and it's up
> > to each individual to wear his fireproof-suite (after flavours is settled I
> > would be interested to have a look at the local packages installation pull
> > request)?
> >   
> 
> The official maintainer is tz@ for now, he just handed the maintainership to 
> se@
> 
> As for push access for now, only git-admin (which I am part of) and bdrewery
> (who use to maintain portmaster) have access. I'll be glad to give push acces 
> to
> more people.
> 
> For now I have pushed patches from Stefan in the repo (not the flavor support
> but the preliminary to it)
> 
> Best regards,
> Bapt


Would it be possible to have some page to track/show the changes/progress to 
the code? For some times, we had a lot of "i'm working on it but behind closed 
doors".

For that kind of tools, it would be nice to see the process of upgrading 
portmaster (or any other tool for that matter) and get a bit more familiar with 
the code.

Even a wip branch would be great to involve more people, and that way, people 
would be a bit less in the dark, but that is just my 2 cents...

Have a nice day,

--
Matthieu Volat 


pgprKFsRC8yIM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:13:09PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting Baptiste Daroussin  (from Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:54:27
> +0100):
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:49:45PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> 
> > > Alternatively, how would a FreeBSD committer like Stefan or
> > > Torsten or me or whoever gain write access to
> > > https://github.com/freebsd/portmaster/ so get some progress in
> > > the official portmaster location and create a new release
> > > (sorry my ignorance for github and how it works, I'm used to
> > > CVS/SVN workflows)?
> > 
> > They just need to ask git admins to get access, I have already asked
> > Stefan (not
> > reply yet)
> > 
> > They can also ask me directly if they want given I am part of the git admins
> 
> And I see that I'm already part of the FreeBSD organisation on github, so I
> should have access. So... currently portmaster is wild-wild-west territory?
> No real owner, anyone willing to fix/improve is free to do so, and it's up
> to each individual to wear his fireproof-suite (after flavours is settled I
> would be interested to have a look at the local packages installation pull
> request)?
> 

The official maintainer is tz@ for now, he just handed the maintainership to se@

As for push access for now, only git-admin (which I am part of) and bdrewery
(who use to maintain portmaster) have access. I'll be glad to give push acces to
more people.

For now I have pushed patches from Stefan in the repo (not the flavor support
but the preliminary to it)

Best regards,
Bapt


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Alexander Leidinger]

Quoting Baptiste Daroussin  (from Thu, 7 Dec 2017  
14:54:27 +0100):



On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:49:45PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:



Alternatively, how would a FreeBSD committer like Stefan or
Torsten or me or whoever gain write access to
https://github.com/freebsd/portmaster/ so get some progress in
the official portmaster location and create a new release
(sorry my ignorance for github and how it works, I'm used to
CVS/SVN workflows)?


They just need to ask git admins to get access, I have already asked  
Stefan (not

reply yet)

They can also ask me directly if they want given I am part of the git admins


And I see that I'm already part of the FreeBSD organisation on github,  
so I should have access. So... currently portmaster is wild-wild-west  
territory? No real owner, anyone willing to fix/improve is free to do  
so, and it's up to each individual to wear his fireproof-suite (after  
flavours is settled I would be interested to have a look at the local  
packages installation pull request)?


Bye,
Alexander.
--
http://www.Leidinger.net alexan...@leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
http://www.FreeBSD.orgnetch...@freebsd.org  : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF


pgp5Uiy0JyhjN.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

RE: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Tatsuki Makino]

Thanks to everyone for replying.


From: Stefan Esser [s...@freebsd.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 16:35
To: Tatsuki Makino; FreeBSD Ports ML
Subject: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

> I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster.

Thank you very much.
Will the new portmaster be version portmaster-4.x?
___
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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:49:45PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> 
> Quoting Stefan Esser <s...@freebsd.org> (from Tue, 5 Dec 2017 08:35:55 +0100):
> 
> > Am 05.12.17 um 00:43 schrieb Tatsuki Makino:
> > > By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor?
> > > I am using portmaster.
> > 
> > I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build
> 
> I wonder if it would make sense to import portmaster into
> FreeBSD SVN. It is a tool targeting the FreeBSD ports tree and
> pkg infrastructure and it looks like it is important for a not
> so small userbase.
> 
> While there are several committers within the contributors (I'm
> not sure if this means they have write access to the repo or if
> it just means that a pull request was accepted), there is more
> or less no progress since 2013 (yes, a few commits there, but
> also useful pull requests for e.g. local package installation
> with pkgng support which are not integrated at all). If we look
> at how widespread the use of portmaster still is (and I'm sure
> there are more people which use it and are more cool-headed and
> just wait if there are some fixes coming for it in the near
> future like it was the case for the pkgng switch), it would
> make sense to have the (as it looks)
> abandoned-on-github-portmaster-version in a FreeBSD controlled
> area.
> 
> Alternatively, how would a FreeBSD committer like Stefan or
> Torsten or me or whoever gain write access to
> https://github.com/freebsd/portmaster/ so get some progress in
> the official portmaster location and create a new release
> (sorry my ignorance for github and how it works, I'm used to
> CVS/SVN workflows)?

They just need to ask git admins to get access, I have already asked Stefan (not
reply yet)

They can also ask me directly if they want given I am part of the git admins

Bapt


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Alexander Leidinger]

Quoting Stefan Esser <s...@freebsd.org> (from Tue, 5 Dec 2017 08:35:55 +0100):


Am 05.12.17 um 00:43 schrieb Tatsuki Makino:

By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor?
I am using portmaster.


I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build


I wonder if it would make sense to import portmaster into FreeBSD SVN.  
It is a tool targeting the FreeBSD ports tree and pkg infrastructure  
and it looks like it is important for a not so small userbase.


While there are several committers within the contributors (I'm not  
sure if this means they have write access to the repo or if it just  
means that a pull request was accepted), there is more or less no  
progress since 2013 (yes, a few commits there, but also useful pull  
requests for e.g. local package installation with pkgng support which  
are not integrated at all). If we look at how widespread the use of  
portmaster still is (and I'm sure there are more people which use it  
and are more cool-headed and just wait if there are some fixes coming  
for it in the near future like it was the case for the pkgng switch),  
it would make sense to have the (as it looks)  
abandoned-on-github-portmaster-version in a FreeBSD controlled area.


Alternatively, how would a FreeBSD committer like Stefan or Torsten or  
me or whoever gain write access to  
https://github.com/freebsd/portmaster/ so get some progress in the  
official portmaster location and create a new release (sorry my  
ignorance for github and how it works, I'm used to CVS/SVN workflows)?


Bye,
Alexander.

--
http://www.Leidinger.net alexan...@leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
http://www.FreeBSD.orgnetch...@freebsd.org  : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF


pgpLtiCSMk2Ql.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Jim Trigg]

I volunteer to test.

Thanks,
Jim Trigg


On December 5, 2017 4:35:05 AM EST, Torsten Zuehlsdorff <t...@freebsd.org> 
wrote:
>Aloha Stefan,
>On 05.12.2017 08:35, Stefan Esser wrote:
>> Am 05.12.17 um 00:43 schrieb Tatsuki Makino:
>>> By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor?
>>> I am using portmaster.
>> 
>> I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already
>build
>> all updated ports, the FLAVOR parameter is passed to build
>sub-processes,
>> but there is still some confusion between multiple flavored versions
>of the
>> same port (installing the py27 version wants to deinstall the py36
>version
>> and vice versa), which I still have to fix.
>
>Great news. I was starting today and just read your email. Lucky me :D
>
>> My work version has all non PKG_NG support stripped, but that is
>mainly to
>> not waste effort fixing irrelevant sub-routines.
>> 
>> Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package
>system?
>> AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support
>works
>> with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?
>
>This was something i aimed for in portmaster 2 since many changes were 
>very subtle and there is no test-suite.
>
>But if there are some volunteers to test, i'm fine with it right now.
>
>Greetings,
>Torsten
>-- 
>Support me at:
>https://www.patreon.com/TorstenZuehlsdorff
>___
>freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
>https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>"freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Chris H]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:48:12 -0600 "Mark Linimon"  said


On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:42:27AM -0800, Chris H wrote:
> IMHO it might be a good idea to make a legacy branch, in the ports
> tree before gutting the pre-NG stuff.

Good lord, people.

The pre-NG stuff has Left The Building.  It is not coming back.

The last (even trivial) revision to the pkg_* codebase was Mon Aug 19
14:04:35 2013 UTC:

 https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision=254525

The corresponding bsd.port.mk version was:

 https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision=324051

For comparison:

 ports is currently at r455604 [*]
 USES= had recently been introduced at r313517 Wed Mar 6 14:28:57
   2013 UTC (4 years, 9 months ago)
 options handling had recently been reworked at r321785 Wed Jun 26
   07:22:06 2013 UTC (4 years, 5 months ago)
 LIB_DEPENDS had recently been reworked at r322328 Fri Jul 5 14:10:55
   2013 UTC (4 years, 5 months ago) by bapt
 staging came in at r327910 Mon Sep 23 05:56:35 2013 UTC (4 years,
   2 months ago) 
 the warning about pkg_* EOL was r342537 Tue Feb 4 14:23:08 2014
   UTC (3 years, 10 months ago) 
 and I'm not going to iterate over all the refactoring and bug-

   fixing since that time.

(Most likely, pkg_* was not thoroughly tested since early 2013, so I've
included the first 4 big reworks above.)

If you want to look at the diffs to bsd.port.mk since the last time pkg_*
was even trivially maintained:

 https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/Mk/bsd.port.mk?r1=324051=455280

The diff is 5528 lines.  It's unreadable.

If you're staying with pkg_*, you're basically saying "I don't mind
running with something that hasn't really been QAed with those 5528 lines
of changes."

IMVVHO: madness.

I really don't have anything more I can say on the matter.

mcl

* Because I'm now annoyed, I'm going to do some math:

 455604 - 324051 = 131553

That's over One. Hundred. Thousand. Ports. Commits. Ago.

That's 7 pages of commits to bsd.port.mk itself, per svnweb.

OK now that just makes me look like an idiot. You cite me, then
trim the only redeeming part of my reply.
Now I'm annoyed. ;)


The sensible side of me also agrees that this is probably a reasonable,
and efficient approach. But the practical side says there will likely
be some screaming on the mailing lists, once this change lands.


You see. Like you, I *too* can be sensible. :)

--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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Eric Masson]

Stefan Esser  writes:

Hi Stefan

> Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?

I think so.

Thanks for your work on this.

Éric Masson

-- 
 Discuter tranquillement avec Michel Guillou???
 Je n'ai JAMAIS vu quelqu'un de plus *facho* que ce type. C'est
 écoeurant.
 -+- Rocou In GNU - T'as l'adresse des FFL, c'est pour écrire -+-
___
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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Bryan Drewery]

On 12/4/2017 11:35 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
> Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?
> AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support works
> with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?

100% yes.
If someone needs pkg_* support for an older tree then they can simply
install a portmaster from that older tree.
Pkg has been the only tool since at least 10.0+ which itself has been
EOL since Feb 28 2015. If someone is still somehow depending on pkg_
tools by now with a current ports tree (HOW??) then they are definitely
on their own.

-- 
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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Mark Linimon]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:42:27AM -0800, Chris H wrote:
> IMHO it might be a good idea to make a legacy branch, in the ports
> tree before gutting the pre-NG stuff.

Good lord, people.

The pre-NG stuff has Left The Building.  It is not coming back.

The last (even trivial) revision to the pkg_* codebase was Mon Aug 19
14:04:35 2013 UTC:

  https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision=254525

The corresponding bsd.port.mk version was:

  https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision=324051

For comparison:

  ports is currently at r455604 [*]
  USES= had recently been introduced at r313517 Wed Mar 6 14:28:57
2013 UTC (4 years, 9 months ago)
  options handling had recently been reworked at r321785 Wed Jun 26
07:22:06 2013 UTC (4 years, 5 months ago)
  LIB_DEPENDS had recently been reworked at r322328 Fri Jul 5 14:10:55
2013 UTC (4 years, 5 months ago) by bapt
  staging came in at r327910 Mon Sep 23 05:56:35 2013 UTC (4 years,
2 months ago) 
  the warning about pkg_* EOL was r342537 Tue Feb 4 14:23:08 2014
UTC (3 years, 10 months ago) 
  and I'm not going to iterate over all the refactoring and bug-
fixing since that time.

(Most likely, pkg_* was not thoroughly tested since early 2013, so I've
included the first 4 big reworks above.)

If you want to look at the diffs to bsd.port.mk since the last time pkg_*
was even trivially maintained:

  https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/Mk/bsd.port.mk?r1=324051=455280

The diff is 5528 lines.  It's unreadable.

If you're staying with pkg_*, you're basically saying "I don't mind
running with something that hasn't really been QAed with those 5528 lines
of changes."

IMVVHO: madness.

I really don't have anything more I can say on the matter.

mcl

* Because I'm now annoyed, I'm going to do some math:

  455604 - 324051 = 131553

That's over One. Hundred. Thousand. Ports. Commits. Ago.

That's 7 pages of commits to bsd.port.mk itself, per svnweb.
___
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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Rainer Hurling]

Am 05.12.2017 um 08:35 schrieb Stefan Esser:
> Am 05.12.17 um 00:43 schrieb Tatsuki Makino:
>> By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor?
>> I am using portmaster.
> 
> I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build
> all updated ports, the FLAVOR parameter is passed to build sub-processes,
> but there is still some confusion between multiple flavored versions of the
> same port (installing the py27 version wants to deinstall the py36 version
> and vice versa), which I still have to fix.

Isn't the described behaviour (installing the py27 version wants to
deinstall the py36 version and vice versa) caused by the underlying
ports mechanisms? As far as I can see, portmaster gives exactly the
output, that also comes from using pure 'make deinstall' and 'make
reinstall'.

> I'm not sure that I have time to complete the fix today, but it is not too
> hard. Ports need to complement the port origin with the FLAVOR, where
> appropriate (e.g. when a flavored destination is found in MOVED). Already
> installed packages are annotated with "flavor" and that must be passed to
> the build command, when that port is updated. Most other logic in portmaster
> remains unaffected.
> 
> 
> My work version has all non PKG_NG support stripped, but that is mainly to
> not waste effort fixing irrelevant sub-routines.
> 
> Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?
> AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support works
> with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?
> 
> Regards, STefan

Many thanks for your efforts in bringing flavors into portmaster. Really
appreciated!

Regards,
Rainer
___
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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Jeremy Lea]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:35:55AM +0100, Stefan Esser wrote:
> Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?
> AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support works
> with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?

I also started working on this yesterday...  Looking at the code it is
probably also worth asking if portmaster needs to continue to support so
many binary package options.  Many of the options can be done directly
with 'pkg', and many of the use cases are probably better served by
poudriere, and many of them don't work with portmaster and pkgng anyway.

Regards,
  -Jeremy
___
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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Chris H]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 03:33:10 -0800 "David Wolfskill" <da...@catwhisker.org> said


On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:35:55AM +0100, Stefan Esser wrote:
> ...
> I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build
> all updated ports, the FLAVOR parameter is passed to build sub-processes,
> but there is still some confusion between multiple flavored versions of the
> same port (installing the py27 version wants to deinstall the py36 version
> and vice versa), which I still have to fix.

Thank you; that is encouraging.

> I'm not sure that I have time to complete the fix today, but it is not too
> hard. Ports need to complement the port origin with the FLAVOR, where
> appropriate (e.g. when a flavored destination is found in MOVED). Already
> installed packages are annotated with "flavor" and that must be passed to
> the build command, when that port is updated. Most other logic in portmaster
> remains unaffected.

That seems reasonable.

> My work version has all non PKG_NG support stripped, but that is mainly to
> not waste effort fixing irrelevant sub-routines.

Also reasonable, IMO.

> Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?
> AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support works
> with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?

I believe so: if for no other reason, one wishing to support such a
non-PKG_NG infrastructure can certainly use an older version of
portmaster.

The sensible side of me also agrees that this is probably a reasonable,
and efficient approach. But the practical side says there will likely
be some screaming on the mailing lists, once this change lands.
IMHO it might be a good idea to make a legacy branch, in the ports
tree before gutting the pre-NG stuff.

Just a thought. :)


> Regards, STefan
> 

Peace,
david


--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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Matthieu Volat]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 08:35:55 +0100
Stefan Esser <s...@freebsd.org> wrote:

> Am 05.12.17 um 00:43 schrieb Tatsuki Makino:
> > By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor?
> > I am using portmaster.  
> 
> I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build
> all updated ports, the FLAVOR parameter is passed to build sub-processes,
> but there is still some confusion between multiple flavored versions of the
> same port (installing the py27 version wants to deinstall the py36 version
> and vice versa), which I still have to fix.
> 
> I'm not sure that I have time to complete the fix today, but it is not too
> hard. Ports need to complement the port origin with the FLAVOR, where
> appropriate (e.g. when a flavored destination is found in MOVED). Already
> installed packages are annotated with "flavor" and that must be passed to
> the build command, when that port is updated. Most other logic in portmaster
> remains unaffected.
> 
> 
> My work version has all non PKG_NG support stripped, but that is mainly to
> not waste effort fixing irrelevant sub-routines.
> 
> Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?
> AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support works
> with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?
> 
> Regards, STefan

Ho, and here I was, almost ready to request some comments after playing a bit:

  
https://github.com/freebsd/portmaster/compare/master...mazhe:wip-flavors?expand=1

Regarding old pkg support, wasn't it removed from the repo master branch?


pgpEgNBrsxMHc.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 5 Dec, 2017, at 0:35, Stefan Esser <s...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> Am 05.12.17 um 00:43 schrieb Tatsuki Makino:
>> By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor?
>> I am using portmaster.
> 
> I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build
> all updated ports, the FLAVOR parameter is passed to build sub-processes,
> but there is still some confusion between multiple flavored versions of the
> same port (installing the py27 version wants to deinstall the py36 version
> and vice versa), which I still have to fix.
> 
> I'm not sure that I have time to complete the fix today, but it is not too
> hard. Ports need to complement the port origin with the FLAVOR, where
> appropriate (e.g. when a flavored destination is found in MOVED). Already
> installed packages are annotated with "flavor" and that must be passed to
> the build command, when that port is updated. Most other logic in portmaster
> remains unaffected.
> 
> 
> My work version has all non PKG_NG support stripped, but that is mainly to
> not waste effort fixing irrelevant sub-routines.
> 
> Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?
> AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support works
> with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?
> 
> Regards, STefan

Thank you for doing the work!!!

Yes, old package (PKG_OG?) support should be removed. Even if portmaster 
supported it, the ports tree itself doesn't.

# 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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[George Mitchell]

On 12/05/17 02:35, Stefan Esser wrote:
> [...]
> Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?
> AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support works
> with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?
> 
> Regards, STefan
> [...]
One vote here for dropping old package support.-- George



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[David Wolfskill]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:35:55AM +0100, Stefan Esser wrote:
> ...
> I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build
> all updated ports, the FLAVOR parameter is passed to build sub-processes,
> but there is still some confusion between multiple flavored versions of the
> same port (installing the py27 version wants to deinstall the py36 version
> and vice versa), which I still have to fix.

Thank you; that is encouraging.

> I'm not sure that I have time to complete the fix today, but it is not too
> hard. Ports need to complement the port origin with the FLAVOR, where
> appropriate (e.g. when a flavored destination is found in MOVED). Already
> installed packages are annotated with "flavor" and that must be passed to
> the build command, when that port is updated. Most other logic in portmaster
> remains unaffected.

That seems reasonable.

> My work version has all non PKG_NG support stripped, but that is mainly to
> not waste effort fixing irrelevant sub-routines.

Also reasonable, IMO.

> Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?
> AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support works
> with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?

I believe so: if for no other reason, one wishing to support such a
non-PKG_NG infrastructure can certainly use an older version of
portmaster.

> Regards, STefan
> 

Peace,
david
-- 
David H. Wolfskill  da...@catwhisker.org
Trump is an incompetent, lying bully who is unfit for any public office.

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Thomas Mueller]

> On 05.12.2017 08:35, Stefan Esser wrote:
> > Am 05.12.17 um 00:43 schrieb Tatsuki Makino:
> > > By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor?
> > > I am using portmaster.

> > I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build
> > all updated ports, the FLAVOR parameter is passed to build sub-processes,
> > but there is still some confusion between multiple flavored versions of the
> > same port (installing the py27 version wants to deinstall the py36 version
> > and vice versa), which I still have to fix.

> Great news. I was starting today and just read your email. Lucky me :D

> > My work version has all non PKG_NG support stripped, but that is mainly to
> > not waste effort fixing irrelevant sub-routines.

> > Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?
> > AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support works
> > with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?

> This was something i aimed for in portmaster 2 since many changes were very
> subtle and there is no test-suite.

> But if there are some volunteers to test, i'm fine with it right now.

> Greetings,
> Torsten

As far as I know, no supported version of FreeBSD supports the old pkg_* tools, 
it's all pkgng.

So I can't see any need for portmaster to support the pre-pkgng infrastructure.

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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Torsten Zuehlsdorff]

Aloha Stefan,
On 05.12.2017 08:35, Stefan Esser wrote:

Am 05.12.17 um 00:43 schrieb Tatsuki Makino:

By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor?
I am using portmaster.


I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build
all updated ports, the FLAVOR parameter is passed to build sub-processes,
but there is still some confusion between multiple flavored versions of the
same port (installing the py27 version wants to deinstall the py36 version
and vice versa), which I still have to fix.


Great news. I was starting today and just read your email. Lucky me :D


My work version has all non PKG_NG support stripped, but that is mainly to
not waste effort fixing irrelevant sub-routines.

Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?
AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support works
with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?


This was something i aimed for in portmaster 2 since many changes were 
very subtle and there is no test-suite.


But if there are some volunteers to test, i'm fine with it right now.

Greetings,
Torsten
--
Support me at:
https://www.patreon.com/TorstenZuehlsdorff
___
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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Milan Obuch]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 08:35:55 +0100
Stefan Esser <s...@freebsd.org> wrote:

> Am 05.12.17 um 00:43 schrieb Tatsuki Makino:
> > By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor?
> > I am using portmaster.  
> 
> I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already
> build all updated ports, the FLAVOR parameter is passed to build
> sub-processes, but there is still some confusion between multiple
> flavored versions of the same port (installing the py27 version wants
> to deinstall the py36 version and vice versa), which I still have to
> fix.
>

Thank you! Great news.

> I'm not sure that I have time to complete the fix today, but it is
> not too hard. Ports need to complement the port origin with the
> FLAVOR, where appropriate (e.g. when a flavored destination is found
> in MOVED). Already installed packages are annotated with "flavor" and
> that must be passed to the build command, when that port is updated.
> Most other logic in portmaster remains unaffected.
>

As I understand it, portmaster is kind of wrapper around ports
infrastructure. What makes it complicated is a good number corner cases
which are not easy to handle right.

In my experience, even unaltered still kind of works for me with recet
port tree. I did even upgrade some python ports with it, so chances are
it could be done.

> My work version has all non PKG_NG support stripped, but that is
> mainly to not waste effort fixing irrelevant sub-routines.
> 
> Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package
> system? AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor
> support works with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?
> 

This is not easy to tell... Is there still interest in old pkg_tools?
In my opinion, old pkg_tools should be in history (and I know I did use
them as long as it was kind of working before moving to current pkg).
How much of portmaster code deals with this legacy tools? Removing this
code could have positive effect of less code to deal with means less
space for bugs... Or portmaster-legacy port could be created, if there
is real interest.

Regards,
Milan
___
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"

Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Stefan Esser]

Am 05.12.17 um 00:43 schrieb Tatsuki Makino:
> By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor?
> I am using portmaster.

I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build
all updated ports, the FLAVOR parameter is passed to build sub-processes,
but there is still some confusion between multiple flavored versions of the
same port (installing the py27 version wants to deinstall the py36 version
and vice versa), which I still have to fix.

I'm not sure that I have time to complete the fix today, but it is not too
hard. Ports need to complement the port origin with the FLAVOR, where
appropriate (e.g. when a flavored destination is found in MOVED). Already
installed packages are annotated with "flavor" and that must be passed to
the build command, when that port is updated. Most other logic in portmaster
remains unaffected.


My work version has all non PKG_NG support stripped, but that is mainly to
not waste effort fixing irrelevant sub-routines.

Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?
AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support works
with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?

Regards, STefan
___
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"