Re: options used to compile packages
Michael Powell nightre...@hotmail.com writes: David Arendt wrote: Hi, well I don't actually now which package it was, but I compiled gdm (so it should be one of it's dependencies). A compilation resulted in a non working gdm (something with pam support not found on execution). Upon installing gdm and is dependencies from packages, everything worked correctly. Therefore I thought there might be other default options. I am sorry that I cannot be more precise, but I tried it 2 months ago, so I do not remember exactly. I think I will try it again from scratch with latest ports tree and give you more precise information. [snip] As you probably know, make config will open a previously saved configuration. The first time a port that has options is built you will get the options screen where you can select/deselect options. Make config recursive will also walk the dependency tree and pull up all the config screens for dependencies as well. These options are saved in /var/db/ports. Each port will have a directory containing an 'options' file. Deleting these will remove what make config saved and reset it back to as if the port hadn't been built previously with the options screen once again appearing. These would be the defaults. A shotgun approach would be to wipe all of the content from /var/db/ports and then it would be like starting from scratch; all ports would present default options. Kind of an ugly thing to do, better if you could identify a subset and only remove what's needed. Wiping everything will reset your entire ports tree to beginning with default options. As a backup you could also copy/save the contents of /var/db/ports somewhere else for future reference. There is a PORT_DBDIR environment variable that is supposed to override the location of the ports options (I read about it in ports(7), but haven't used it myself). That should avoid the need to mess with the system's real ports options. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: options used to compile packages
Hi, When I did the test, I used FreeBSD 8.2 amd64 using the ports collection delivered with this distribution. Yesterday I did a checkout of the latest ports tree. I compiled bash, xorg, xfce and gdm using the default options. When trying to login using gdm, it still complains about a missing keyring pam module. When I disable keyring support in gdm, gdm runs flawlessly. Therefore I thought that options used to compile the offical packages might be different. If default options are used to compile them, it should be a some other problem. To ensure that my build environment is not polluted, I did this test on a fresh installation. But anyway it doesn't matter as I have a workaround. Thanks for your valuable information, Bye, David Arendt On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 18:12 -0400, b. f. wrote: well I don't actually now which package it was, but I compiled gdm (so it should be one of it's dependencies). A compilation resulted in a non working gdm (something with pam support not found on execution). Upon installing gdm and is dependencies from packages, everything worked correctly. Therefore I thought there might be other default options. I am sorry that I cannot be more precise, but I tried it 2 months ago, so I do not remember exactly. I think I will try it again from scratch with latest ports tree and give you more precise information. In addition to the obvious possibilities that your test was faulty, or that you somehow polluted your build environment, It is also possible that: -at least one of your ports was a different version than used in the default packages, and had a bug; -there was a transient build error; or -you were using a different version of FreeBSD than that used to build the default packages that you used, and there is a problem with one of the ports on that version of FreeBSD. b. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: options used to compile packages
David Arendt wrote: Hi, well I don't actually now which package it was, but I compiled gdm (so it should be one of it's dependencies). A compilation resulted in a non working gdm (something with pam support not found on execution). Upon installing gdm and is dependencies from packages, everything worked correctly. Therefore I thought there might be other default options. I am sorry that I cannot be more precise, but I tried it 2 months ago, so I do not remember exactly. I think I will try it again from scratch with latest ports tree and give you more precise information. [snip] As you probably know, make config will open a previously saved configuration. The first time a port that has options is built you will get the options screen where you can select/deselect options. Make config recursive will also walk the dependency tree and pull up all the config screens for dependencies as well. These options are saved in /var/db/ports. Each port will have a directory containing an 'options' file. Deleting these will remove what make config saved and reset it back to as if the port hadn't been built previously with the options screen once again appearing. These would be the defaults. A shotgun approach would be to wipe all of the content from /var/db/ports and then it would be like starting from scratch; all ports would present default options. Kind of an ugly thing to do, better if you could identify a subset and only remove what's needed. Wiping everything will reset your entire ports tree to beginning with default options. As a backup you could also copy/save the contents of /var/db/ports somewhere else for future reference. -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: options used to compile packages
On 7/17/11, David Arendt ad...@prnet.org wrote: When I did the test, I used FreeBSD 8.2 amd64 using the ports collection delivered with this distribution. I see. Since that time, there have been very few changes to the version of the base system used to build the packages for 8, but more to some of the ports that you mentioned, so probably the difference that you observed is due to the latter, if it isn't caused by some local change on your own system. Yesterday I did a checkout of the latest ports tree. I compiled bash, xorg, xfce and gdm using the default options. When trying to login using gdm, it still complains about a missing keyring pam module. When I disable keyring support in gdm, gdm runs flawlessly. Therefore I thought that options used to compile the offical packages might be different. If default options are used to compile them, it should be a some other problem. To ensure that my build environment is not polluted, I did this test on a fresh installation. But anyway it doesn't matter as I have a workaround. If you believe that the error arises from a problem other than your particular configuration of gdm and its dependencies, or at least is likely to affect others, then it would be helpful if you submitted a problem report: http://www.freebsd.org/send-pr.html after having first looked to see if a similar problem has already been reported, via: http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?category=severity=priority=class=state=sort=nonetext=responsible=multitext=pamoriginator=release= or other searches of your own. b. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
options used to compile packages
Hi, I want to compile packages from the ports collections with exactly the same options that have been used to compile the official packages from the official freebsd package collection. Is the var/db/ports directory used to compile the official freebsd package collection available somewhere ? If not, it would be very good to make it available as ports default options seem to be different from options used to compile official packages. Thanks in advance Bye, David Arendt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: options used to compile packages
On 16/07/2011 08:44, David Arendt wrote: I want to compile packages from the ports collections with exactly the same options that have been used to compile the official packages from the official freebsd package collection. Is the var/db/ports directory used to compile the official freebsd package collection available somewhere ? If not, it would be very good to make it available as ports default options seem to be different from options used to compile official packages. Official packages are compiled using the default options in each port. What have you found where that is seemingly not the case? You can see the logs from the port build clusters on http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/ Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: options used to compile packages
Hi, well I don't actually now which package it was, but I compiled gdm (so it should be one of it's dependencies). A compilation resulted in a non working gdm (something with pam support not found on execution). Upon installing gdm and is dependencies from packages, everything worked correctly. Therefore I thought there might be other default options. I am sorry that I cannot be more precise, but I tried it 2 months ago, so I do not remember exactly. I think I will try it again from scratch with latest ports tree and give you more precise information. Bye, David Arendt On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 10:36 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 16/07/2011 08:44, David Arendt wrote: I want to compile packages from the ports collections with exactly the same options that have been used to compile the official packages from the official freebsd package collection. Is the var/db/ports directory used to compile the official freebsd package collection available somewhere ? If not, it would be very good to make it available as ports default options seem to be different from options used to compile official packages. Official packages are compiled using the default options in each port. What have you found where that is seemingly not the case? You can see the logs from the port build clusters on http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/ Cheers, Matthew ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: options used to compile packages
I want to compile packages from the ports collections with exactly the same options that have been used to compile the official packages from the official freebsd package collection. Is the var/db/ports directory used to compile the official freebsd package collection available somewhere ? If not, it would be very good to make it available as ports default options seem to be different from options used to compile official packages. As far as I know, the default options are used to compile the standard packages. Where did you think that there were differences? The official builds use a vanilla ports tree, and the scripts at http://svnweb.FreeBSD.org/base/projects/portbuild/ . b. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: options used to compile packages
well I don't actually now which package it was, but I compiled gdm (so it should be one of it's dependencies). A compilation resulted in a non working gdm (something with pam support not found on execution). Upon installing gdm and is dependencies from packages, everything worked correctly. Therefore I thought there might be other default options. I am sorry that I cannot be more precise, but I tried it 2 months ago, so I do not remember exactly. I think I will try it again from scratch with latest ports tree and give you more precise information. In addition to the obvious possibilities that your test was faulty, or that you somehow polluted your build environment, It is also possible that: -at least one of your ports was a different version than used in the default packages, and had a bug; -there was a transient build error; or -you were using a different version of FreeBSD than that used to build the default packages that you used, and there is a problem with one of the ports on that version of FreeBSD. b. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
