Re: MK_CLANG_IS_CC mis-formed when compiling ports
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:13:11PM -0700, Thomas D. Dean wrote: I built FrfeeBSD 9 with WITHOUT_CLANG=Yes When I try to build the net/bwn-firmware-kmod/ I get an error that MK_CLANG_IS_CC is mis-formed. If I define this in make.conf, I get an error that the user may not set this. If I use 'make MK_CLANG_IS_CC=no' the port compiles. How do I fix this? Why did you define WITHOUT_CLANG? On 10.0-current amd64 I build the world/kernel with no clang-related options: GEN8 cat /etc/make.conf SENDMAIL_CFLAGS+= -I/usr/local/include -DSASL=2 SENDMAIL_LDFLAGS+= -L/usr/local/lib SENDMAIL_LDADD+=-lsasl2 PERL_VERSION=5.14.2 WITH_PKGNG=yes #CC=clang #CXX=clang++ #CPP=clang-cpp GEN8 I have no problems when building bwn-firmware-kmod. -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ___ 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: MK_CLANG_IS_CC mis-formed when compiling ports
On 06/01/12 00:00, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:13:11PM -0700, Thomas D. Dean wrote: I built FrfeeBSD 9 with WITHOUT_CLANG=Yes When I try to build the net/bwn-firmware-kmod/ I get an error that MK_CLANG_IS_CC is mis-formed. If I define this in make.conf, I get an error that the user may not set this. If I use 'make MK_CLANG_IS_CC=no' the port compiles. How do I fix this? Why did you define WITHOUT_CLANG? I think I am stuck at 9.x because of the clang stuff. I defined WITHOUT_CLANG to stop make buildworld from building clang. don't want it, don't need it Tom Dean ___ 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
MK_CLANG_IS_CC mis-formed when compiling ports
I built FrfeeBSD 9 with WITHOUT_CLANG=Yes When I try to build the net/bwn-firmware-kmod/ I get an error that MK_CLANG_IS_CC is mis-formed. If I define this in make.conf, I get an error that the user may not set this. If I use 'make MK_CLANG_IS_CC=no' the port compiles. How do I fix this? Tom Dean ___ 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
Undefined reference to pthread_equal when compiling ports
Various ports that depend on Perl are coming up with the error in the subject when I try to upgrade them. I've tried a portupgrade -fR [package] and even portupgrade -fRra and it's not fixing the undefined reference. I've cvsupped several times, including the base system. I don't see anything related in UPDATING and searching the internet doesn't pull up anything that seems related. I've ran out of ideas and turn to you guys. Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports with more than one job
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:55:53 +0100 (CET) Christian Baer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:37:33 + RW wrote: There are two problems here. The first is that not all of the underlying builds support this. The second is that we are using Make as our ports scripting language - I'm guessing that in Gentoo no-one expects portage itself to be parallel. I don't actually *expect* anything. :-) I'm not sure why you think that Gentoo should be an exeption here, but that won't hold up forever - on any OS. I don't, it was an analogy. Gentoo has a portage system based on Python that mostly builds software using Gnu make, FreeBSD has a ports system based on BSD make that also mostly builds software using Gnu make. Gentoo can make use of parallel processes by passing -j to gnu make,and IMO this is how it should be done in FreeBSD. The fact that FreeBSD uses Make as its ports scripting language confuses the issue, people expect to be able to type make -j in a ports directory, but when they do that they are applying the -j to the wrong make - it's analogous the python part of Gentoo portage. I don't see any good reason why the ports system *itself* should ever support -j, there's nothing to be gained by it. All that's needed is a better mechanism to tell the underlying build to use multiple processes. So you mean a MAKE_ARGS= -j 4 would help? Worth a try, a few ports already do this Probably you would want to set it conditionally in make.conf, so you can exclude any problematical ports. What do you mean with that? You wouldn't want to use it on ports that are known to fail would you? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: compiling ports with more than one job
There really two answers possible here - 1) Let's call it one depth e.g. make -j - Which works with some not all ports - Nice when it works and I guess ports/Mk could hold a flag 2) Let's call it width - e.g. the ability to compile packages at the same time given that all dependencies has been resolved 3) combination of 1 and 2 In practical terms option 2 is much more attractive as it is possible to determine that just from the INDEX file and the installed ports. However due to the way compilation options are treated e.g. I am not sure that it is completely safe - I will require some locking during the make (de/re)install phase but possible to handle - It would still cut portupgrade significantly With 15-16000+ ports I think that 1 and 3 are unpractical - however it could make sense to have some packages (kde/gnome) handled with make -j and it seems to work with at least some of the kde packages - but only I think if make extract/patch/configure are run without -j -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RW Sent: 05 March 2007 21:21 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: compiling ports with more than one job On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:55:53 +0100 (CET) Christian Baer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:37:33 + RW wrote: There are two problems here. The first is that not all of the underlying builds support this. The second is that we are using Make as our ports scripting language - I'm guessing that in Gentoo no-one expects portage itself to be parallel. I don't actually *expect* anything. :-) I'm not sure why you think that Gentoo should be an exeption here, but that won't hold up forever - on any OS. I don't, it was an analogy. Gentoo has a portage system based on Python that mostly builds software using Gnu make, FreeBSD has a ports system based on BSD make that also mostly builds software using Gnu make. Gentoo can make use of parallel processes by passing -j to gnu make,and IMO this is how it should be done in FreeBSD. The fact that FreeBSD uses Make as its ports scripting language confuses the issue, people expect to be able to type make -j in a ports directory, but when they do that they are applying the -j to the wrong make - it's analogous the python part of Gentoo portage. I don't see any good reason why the ports system *itself* should ever support -j, there's nothing to be gained by it. All that's needed is a better mechanism to tell the underlying build to use multiple processes. So you mean a MAKE_ARGS= -j 4 would help? Worth a try, a few ports already do this Probably you would want to set it conditionally in make.conf, so you can exclude any problematical ports. What do you mean with that? You wouldn't want to use it on ports that are known to fail would you? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports with more than one job
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 22:45:53 - Thomas Sparrevohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There really two answers possible here - 1) Let's call it one depth e.g. make -j - Which works with some not all ports - Nice when it works and I guess ports/Mk could hold a flag 2) Let's call it width - e.g. the ability to compile packages at the same time given that all dependencies has been resolved 3) combination of 1 and 2 In practical terms option 2 is much more attractive as it is possible to determine that just from the INDEX file and the installed ports. You would probably have to do it like portmanger does, the INDEX file isn't accurate. However due to the way compilation options are treated e.g. I am not sure that it is completely safe - I will require some locking during the make (de/re)install phase but possible to handle - It would still cut portupgrade significantly It couldn't be done easily in the ports system itself, a new tool would be needed. However I think it can be done without any locking at all. The way I would do it is have a single master process that works through the packages in dependency order. For each package it does a make configureand then spawns off the build in a separate process. Once N builds are in progress, the master process sits there waiting for processes to complete, serializes the installs and kicks off new build processes. The beauty of this is that anything in the least bit critical is done in the single master process, but most of the work is done in the build processes, so the master wont be a bottleneck. There's a bit more to it, for example there would have to be special handling for packages that appear to have missing dependencies, consequently a different logic would be needed for new installs. With 15-16000+ ports I think that 1 and 3 are unpractical - however I don't think it is, it could be handled the way amd64 ports are/were handled, by asking people to try them and report back. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports with more than one job
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:44:16 -0600 Josh Paetzel wrote: The issues with the config screen sounds like a bug, but one that is unlikely to get fixed any time soon. You can avoid it by doing a make config-recursive before building the port, but you're still going to run in to the problem that ports are not guarranteed to by -jX safe, some will work, some won't, and there's no way of knowing without trying it. In general you can save yourself a lot of headaches by not trying in the first place. I don't have a headache because the port didn't compile, but because compiling without -jX is *really* slow. SPARC CPUs are just slow (by today's standards). Therefore the wish to use all of them (in my case both) is a lot bigger than it would be for someone with an AMD64 5000+ to use both cores. Regards Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports with more than one job
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:07:24 -0500 Lowell Gilbert wrote: Exactly right. However, you can get some parallel building by doing more than one single-threaded build at the same time. This leads to some danger of corrupting the database, though, so it's not for the squeamish. I know that portupgrade uses locking to control those problems, and I suspect some of the other port-management ports probably have similar capabilities. That could actually lead to more problems than a port that doesn't work with -jX. Regards Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports with more than one job
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:37:33 + RW wrote: There are two problems here. The first is that not all of the underlying builds support this. The second is that we are using Make as our ports scripting language - I'm guessing that in Gentoo no-one expects portage itself to be parallel. I don't actually *expect* anything. :-) I'm not sure why you think that Gentoo should be an exeption here, but that won't hold up forever - on any OS. It seems that we have reached a point where faster CPUs cannot be made by just increasing the clock. All current CPUs (from Intel and AMD) have two cores and ones with four cores are almost on the market. There are CPUs in other areas with even more cores in use today. This means that at least in the near future just about every OS must somehow work with more than one CPU since parallel computing seems to be the future. This will create several new challenges. Microsoft will lose money because until now they charged money for their OS if the customer wanted more than one CPU supported. :-) But others will have to adapt too. FreeBSD and Gentoo will have to get the compiling into order so it works parallel. NetBSD mut get SMP running properly at all. I know that SMP wasn't considered too important in the past as only servers had more than one CPU. But the times are changing, SMP is coming bigtime and the software must be made to meet the demands of the hardware. Really it's only the build stage that matters. What you might try is setting the MAKE_ARGS variable, which passes extra arguments to gmake during build and install. If a port makefile sets it explicitly you'll be out of luck, but I think most either don't set it, or use +=. So you mean a MAKE_ARGS= -j 4 would help? Probably you would want to set it conditionally in make.conf, so you can exclude any problematical ports. What do you mean with that? Regards Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
compiling ports with more than one job
Good morning[1], folks! I am currently setting up a Sun U60 with FreeBSD. A few amount of apps will be installed on it, when I'm through with it. And that is where it gets a little frustrating. The packages for SPARC64 aren't really up to date. That is why using them isn't really an option. Besides, some programs actually get a real boost if they are compiled with an -mcpu flag, which probably isn't set when the packages are compiled. So, I'm down to installing them over the ports collection. That isn't bad in itself. But even a U60 isn't really a fast machine and if you compile bigger collections (like x.org, kde, firefox etc.) you can watch yourself aging while the machine is at it. It would be a great help if I could really use both CPUs in this machine. But somehow that doesn't work. I have observed two things so far (in general): Some ports (like mc) have a menu for choosing the compile options. If I try to make one of those with more than one job (make -j 2) I can't hit any of the boxes on the list of options or even hit the ok button. It would seem that make went on to the next job without actually waiting for the input. The same background but with a slightly different effect is also true for ports without a menu. I couldn't make xorg with more than one job because make just ran on without waiting for the required things to be there and stopped with a no such file or directory. That is quite a drag as on UltraSPARC II CPUs compiling isn't much fun even if you use all the CPU-power there is. Normally you'd think that a meta-port like xorg just hast to be compiled step by step. However, a far more complex system (make -j 4 buildworld) works just fine. Am I too thick to get the point here or is it really true that the ports in general will only compile correctly one job at a time? Regards Chris [1] It is where I live. :-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports with more than one job
On Wednesday 28 February 2007 04:32, Christian Baer wrote: Good morning[1], folks! I am currently setting up a Sun U60 with FreeBSD. A few amount of apps will be installed on it, when I'm through with it. And that is where it gets a little frustrating. The packages for SPARC64 aren't really up to date. That is why using them isn't really an option. Besides, some programs actually get a real boost if they are compiled with an -mcpu flag, which probably isn't set when the packages are compiled. So, I'm down to installing them over the ports collection. That isn't bad in itself. But even a U60 isn't really a fast machine and if you compile bigger collections (like x.org, kde, firefox etc.) you can watch yourself aging while the machine is at it. It would be a great help if I could really use both CPUs in this machine. But somehow that doesn't work. I have observed two things so far (in general): Some ports (like mc) have a menu for choosing the compile options. If I try to make one of those with more than one job (make -j 2) I can't hit any of the boxes on the list of options or even hit the ok button. It would seem that make went on to the next job without actually waiting for the input. The same background but with a slightly different effect is also true for ports without a menu. I couldn't make xorg with more than one job because make just ran on without waiting for the required things to be there and stopped with a no such file or directory. That is quite a drag as on UltraSPARC II CPUs compiling isn't much fun even if you use all the CPU-power there is. Normally you'd think that a meta-port like xorg just hast to be compiled step by step. However, a far more complex system (make -j 4 buildworld) works just fine. Am I too thick to get the point here or is it really true that the ports in general will only compile correctly one job at a time? Regards Chris The issues with the config screen sounds like a bug, but one that is unlikely to get fixed any time soon. You can avoid it by doing a make config-recursive before building the port, but you're still going to run in to the problem that ports are not guarranteed to by -jX safe, some will work, some won't, and there's no way of knowing without trying it. In general you can save yourself a lot of headaches by not trying in the first place. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports with more than one job
Josh Paetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wednesday 28 February 2007 04:32, Christian Baer wrote: Good morning[1], folks! I am currently setting up a Sun U60 with FreeBSD. A few amount of apps will be installed on it, when I'm through with it. And that is where it gets a little frustrating. The packages for SPARC64 aren't really up to date. That is why using them isn't really an option. Besides, some programs actually get a real boost if they are compiled with an -mcpu flag, which probably isn't set when the packages are compiled. So, I'm down to installing them over the ports collection. That isn't bad in itself. But even a U60 isn't really a fast machine and if you compile bigger collections (like x.org, kde, firefox etc.) you can watch yourself aging while the machine is at it. It would be a great help if I could really use both CPUs in this machine. But somehow that doesn't work. I have observed two things so far (in general): Some ports (like mc) have a menu for choosing the compile options. If I try to make one of those with more than one job (make -j 2) I can't hit any of the boxes on the list of options or even hit the ok button. It would seem that make went on to the next job without actually waiting for the input. The same background but with a slightly different effect is also true for ports without a menu. I couldn't make xorg with more than one job because make just ran on without waiting for the required things to be there and stopped with a no such file or directory. That is quite a drag as on UltraSPARC II CPUs compiling isn't much fun even if you use all the CPU-power there is. Normally you'd think that a meta-port like xorg just hast to be compiled step by step. However, a far more complex system (make -j 4 buildworld) works just fine. Am I too thick to get the point here or is it really true that the ports in general will only compile correctly one job at a time? Regards Chris The issues with the config screen sounds like a bug, but one that is unlikely to get fixed any time soon. You can avoid it by doing a make config-recursive before building the port, but you're still going to run in to the problem that ports are not guarranteed to by -jX safe, some will work, some won't, and there's no way of knowing without trying it. In general you can save yourself a lot of headaches by not trying in the first place. Exactly right. However, you can get some parallel building by doing more than one single-threaded build at the same time. This leads to some danger of corrupting the database, though, so it's not for the squeamish. I know that portupgrade uses locking to control those problems, and I suspect some of the other port-management ports probably have similar capabilities. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports with more than one job
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:32:57 +0100 (CET) Christian Baer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good morning[1], folks! I am currently setting up a Sun U60 with FreeBSD. A few amount of apps will be installed on it, when I'm through with it. And that is where it gets a little frustrating. The packages for SPARC64 aren't really up to date. That is why using them isn't really an option. Besides, some programs actually get a real boost if they are compiled with an -mcpu flag, which probably isn't set when the packages are compiled. So, I'm down to installing them over the ports collection. That isn't bad in itself. But even a U60 isn't really a fast machine and if you compile bigger collections (like x.org, kde, firefox etc.) you can watch yourself aging while the machine is at it. It would be a great help if I could really use both CPUs in this machine. But somehow that doesn't work. I have observed two things so far (in general): Some ports (like mc) have a menu for choosing the compile options. If I try to make one of those with more than one job (make -j 2) I can't hit any of the boxes on the list of options or even hit the ok button. It would seem that make went on to the next job without actually waiting for the input. The same background but with a slightly different effect is also true for ports without a menu. I couldn't make xorg with more than one job because make just ran on without waiting for the required things to be there and stopped with a no such file or directory. That is quite a drag as on UltraSPARC II CPUs compiling isn't much fun even if you use all the CPU-power there is. Normally you'd think that a meta-port like xorg just hast to be compiled step by step. However, a far more complex system (make -j 4 buildworld) works just fine. There are two problems here. The first is that not all of the underlying builds support this. The second is that we are using Make as our ports scripting language - I'm guessing that in Gentoo no-one expects portage itself to be parallel. Really it's only the build stage that matters. What you might try is setting the MAKE_ARGS variable, which passes extra arguments to gmake during build and install. If a port makefile sets it explicitly you'll be out of luck, but I think most either don't set it, or use +=. Probably you would want to set it conditionally in make.conf, so you can exclude any problematical ports. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports to packages on fast system, installing on slower one
Fri, 9 Jun 2006 00:39:42 -0500, Nikolas Britton wrote: On 6/8/06, Andrey Slusar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:56:25 -0400, Dave wrote: Hello, I was wondering if this was possible? I've got a box that i'd like to install the latest gnome 2.14 desktop on, as well as some very intense apps to build. I would like to compile the needed apps on my fastest machine as packages, then transfer all the packages to the slower box, and do a pkg_add * and they're all installed. My catch is i don't want to install everything on my fastest box to pull this off. I am using portupgrade and was wondering if this was doable? On fast box install the misc/tinderbox and build all packets in tinderbox jail. Can you use a custom make.conf for each tinderbox jail? See the rawenv file for customise. -- Andrey Slusar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports to packages on fast system, installing on slower one
Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:56:25 -0400, Dave wrote: Hello, I was wondering if this was possible? I've got a box that i'd like to install the latest gnome 2.14 desktop on, as well as some very intense apps to build. I would like to compile the needed apps on my fastest machine as packages, then transfer all the packages to the slower box, and do a pkg_add * and they're all installed. My catch is i don't want to install everything on my fastest box to pull this off. I am using portupgrade and was wondering if this was doable? On fast box install the misc/tinderbox and build all packets in tinderbox jail. -- Regards, Andrey. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports to packages on fast system, installing on slower one
Hi, there... One way to do it is to run a portupgrade -n ... to see what would be upgraded, then compile it on the fastest system, export the /usr/ports through nfs and then run a portupgrade -w -W ... using the exported filesystem on the slower system... Don't forget to sincronize both ports system with cvsup... Just a though... ;-) -- Rafael Mentz Aquino BSDServer Ltda. Porto Alegre - RS Brasil 51 - 9847 8825 -- Original Message --- From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:56:25 -0400 Subject: compiling ports to packages on fast system, installing on slower one Hello, I was wondering if this was possible? I've got a box that i'd like to install the latest gnome 2.14 desktop on, as well as some very intense apps to build. I would like to compile the needed apps on my fastest machine as packages, then transfer all the packages to the slower box, and do a pkg_add * and they're all installed. My catch is i don't want to install everything on my fastest box to pull this off. I am using portupgrade and was wondering if this was doable? Thanks. Dave. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- End of Original Message --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports to packages on fast system, installing on slower one
Dave wrote: Hello, Hi I was wondering if this was possible? I've got a box that i'd like to install the latest gnome 2.14 desktop on, as well as some very intense apps to build. I would like to compile the needed apps on my fastest machine as packages, then transfer all the packages to the slower box, and do a pkg_add * and they're all installed. My catch is i don't want to install everything on my fastest box to pull this off. I am using portupgrade and was wondering if this was doable? Thanks. Dave. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] man pkg_create Also check out: http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2006/04/13/freebsd-build-system.html This is a pretty good guide to creating a build server, from your fastest machine, so it does all the work, from updating world and kernel source, to ports. Bascially it involves NFS and mounting the faster computers /usr/src /usr/ports after thier compiled on the faster machine. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiling ports to packages on fast system, installing on slower one
On 6/8/06, Andrey Slusar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:56:25 -0400, Dave wrote: Hello, I was wondering if this was possible? I've got a box that i'd like to install the latest gnome 2.14 desktop on, as well as some very intense apps to build. I would like to compile the needed apps on my fastest machine as packages, then transfer all the packages to the slower box, and do a pkg_add * and they're all installed. My catch is i don't want to install everything on my fastest box to pull this off. I am using portupgrade and was wondering if this was doable? On fast box install the misc/tinderbox and build all packets in tinderbox jail. Can you use a custom make.conf for each tinderbox jail? -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
compiling ports to packages on fast system, installing on slower one
Hello, I was wondering if this was possible? I've got a box that i'd like to install the latest gnome 2.14 desktop on, as well as some very intense apps to build. I would like to compile the needed apps on my fastest machine as packages, then transfer all the packages to the slower box, and do a pkg_add * and they're all installed. My catch is i don't want to install everything on my fastest box to pull this off. I am using portupgrade and was wondering if this was doable? Thanks. Dave. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Compiling Ports...
Am trying to get my head around the ports system, specifically custom options when compiling. For example I would like to install apache 2.2 under it's own dir in /usr/local, say /usr/local/apache22. If I was rolling my own version using the configure script I would do: ./configure prefix=/usr/local/apache22 With that everything would go into that dir, bin files, confs etc. etc. I understand how to make use of the options stuff WITH_ WITHOUT etc. it's just the installation prefix that's bugging me. Have I messed something simple here? Cheers, -- Paul ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling Ports...
On 1/5/06, Crispy Beef [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am trying to get my head around the ports system, specifically custom options when compiling. For example I would like to install apache 2.2 under it's own dir in /usr/local, say /usr/local/apache22. If I was rolling my own version using the configure script I would do: ./configure prefix=/usr/local/apache22 I believe the default prefix can be changed, but I'm unclear as to why you would want to change it. The port installs a package that you can then remove easily with the pkg tools. Why would you want to do this? Mike -- Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling Ports...
Michael P. Soulier wrote: On 1/5/06, Crispy Beef [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am trying to get my head around the ports system, specifically custom options when compiling. For example I would like to install apache 2.2 under it's own dir in /usr/local, say /usr/local/apache22. If I was rolling my own version using the configure script I would do: ./configure prefix=/usr/local/apache22 I believe the default prefix can be changed, but I'm unclear as to why you would want to change it. The port installs a package that you can then remove easily with the pkg tools. Why would you want to do this? Mainly as having Apache in it's own directory with all of it's files together makes it nice and easy to administer, when I compile stuff from scratch I always like to keep things clean, for example: /usr/local/php-5.1.1 /usr/local/mysql-5 /usr/local/apache13 /usr/local/apache22 I'm not too bothered having it all put in the default locations specified by the port, my Gentoo system does this in the same way, just wondered if there was a clean way to do it. :-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling Ports...
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 14:41:50 -0500 Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/5/06, Crispy Beef [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am trying to get my head around the ports system, specifically custom options when compiling. For example I would like to install apache 2.2 under it's own dir in /usr/local, say /usr/local/apache22. If I was rolling my own version using the configure script I would do: ./configure prefix=/usr/local/apache22 I believe the default prefix can be changed, but I'm unclear as to why you would want to change it. The port installs a package that you can then remove easily with the pkg tools. Why would you want to do this? But wait! I thought the pkg system maintained track of where things were installed even if directed somewhere else and a pkg_delete etc would still work. No? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling Ports...
JK wrote: On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 14:41:50 -0500 Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/5/06, Crispy Beef [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am trying to get my head around the ports system, specifically custom options when compiling. For example I would like to install apache 2.2 under it's own dir in /usr/local, say /usr/local/apache22. If I was rolling my own version using the configure script I would do: ./configure prefix=/usr/local/apache22 I believe the default prefix can be changed, but I'm unclear as to why you would want to change it. The port installs a package that you can then remove easily with the pkg tools. Why would you want to do this? But wait! I thought the pkg system maintained track of where things were installed even if directed somewhere else and a pkg_delete etc would still work. No? the pkgdb will record the location of PREFIX, so pkg_delete will still remove it even if its changed. cd /usr/ports/www/apache22 make PREFIX=/usr/local/apache22 install clean Enjoy __ Frank Laszlo System Administrator The VonOstin Group Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW:http://www.vonostingroup.com Mobile: 248-863-7584 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems compiling ports on 4.9?
Are we gonig to start having problems installing ports on FreeBSD 4.9? I can't get nmap to compile. Here's the error: output.o(.gnu.linkonce.t.replace__t12basic_string3ZcZt18string_char_traits1ZcZt24__default_alloc_template2b0i0UiUiUic+0x28): undefined reference to `__out_of_range(char const *)' output.o(.gnu.linkonce.t.replace__t12basic_string3ZcZt18string_char_traits1ZcZt24__default_alloc_template2b0i0UiUiUic+0x54): undefined reference to `__length_error(char const *)' *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/security/nmap/work/nmap-3.48. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/security/nmap. nomad# TIA -- Eric F Crist AdTech Integrated Systems, Inc (612) 998-3588 pgp0.pgp Description: signature
performance gain by compiling ports and kernel / java issues
Hey, 1) I now use the pre-build ports and kernel. (4.9-Release) What performance-gain do I obtain by building my own kernel and compiling the ports ? (the system is a PIII 500 Mhz with 512 MB ram) Does the extra work and efforts compare to the gain ? 2) Installing Eclipse on my box drives me completely nuts. The dependencies of the package requires: the diablo jdk, apache ant ... But during installing apache-ant it also wanted jdk 1.2.2, which requires linux-blackdown jdk. 3 jdk's needed ? Or am I wrong ? www.freebsd.org/java doesn't help me. The automatic installation procedure of eclipse got interrupted because the sun jdk package needs manual download. Did that affect my systems consistency ? Thanx in advance Bert (PS: Since I've subscribed for this list, I receive a lot of virus mails. Am I the only one ?) -- Bert Lagaisse K.U.Leuven, Dept. computer science Address: Celestijnenlaan 200A 3001 Heverlee Belgium Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +32 16 32 78 24 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: performance gain by compiling ports and kernel / java issues
To answer your question number 1. I have done it both ways and I have not seen any performance gain building things by hand. Time is money, so using an pre-built port which is called an package is all ways my first choose. If the port I want does not have package then I use the port. Only at times when the port environment is in flux being updated for new released of FBSD am I forced to do ports by hand. To answer your question number 2 3 in an generic way. The port collection is currently going through an upgrade to support FBSD version 5.2 and at times like this it is very common to have mis-matches on the release levels of dependants required by the primary port. FBSD only has a single port system that they try to keep current with bleeding edge version of FBSD. Sure it would be nice if each production release of FBSD had it's own unique port system which is frozen once all the ports are working for that FBSD version, but that is not going to happen, so learn to live with it like the rest of us do. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bert Lagaisse Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 8:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: performance gain by compiling ports and kernel / java issues Hey, 1) I now use the pre-build ports and kernel. (4.9-Release) What performance-gain do I obtain by building my own kernel and compiling the ports ? (the system is a PIII 500 Mhz with 512 MB ram) Does the extra work and efforts compare to the gain ? 2) Installing Eclipse on my box drives me completely nuts. The dependencies of the package requires: the diablo jdk, apache ant ... But during installing apache-ant it also wanted jdk 1.2.2, which requires linux-blackdown jdk. 3 jdk's needed ? Or am I wrong ? www.freebsd.org/java doesn't help me. The automatic installation procedure of eclipse got interrupted because the sun jdk package needs manual download. Did that affect my systems consistency ? Thanx in advance Bert (PS: Since I've subscribed for this list, I receive a lot of virus mails. Am I the only one ?) -- Bert Lagaisse K.U.Leuven, Dept. computer science Address: Celestijnenlaan 200A 3001 Heverlee Belgium Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +32 16 32 78 24 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: performance gain by compiling ports and kernel / java issues
On Dec 10, 2003, at 8:12 AM, Bert Lagaisse wrote: Hey, 1) I now use the performance-gain do I obtain by building my own kernel and compiling the ports ? (the system is a PIII 500 Mhz with 512 MB ram) Does the extra work and efforts compare to the gain ? If you have a newer processor, there can be a slight performance gain. You must specify the processor type in make.conf before building though. A custom kernel compiled for your processor only can be rather peppy. My custom kernel is half the size of the GENERIC kernel. So to answer your question, yes if you do it correctly following the manual on freebsd.org Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] FoolishGames.com (Jewel Fan Site) JustJournal.com (Free blogging) 'Re-implementing what I designed in 1979 is not interesting to me personally. For kids who are 20 years younger than me, Linux is a great way to cut your teeth. It's a cultural phenomenon and a business phenomenon. Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux.' -- Bill Joy, Wired Article 2003 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling ports
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Adam McLaurin wrote: On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 10:04, Adam Bender wrote: XFree86-4.2.0_1,1 There's your problem. Portupgrade to 4.3.x and try Xft and xscreensaver again. Hmm, I did the portupgrade (surprisingly quick, do I have to do anything else?). Now I have XFree86-4.3.0,1, but I still get the same compilation errors from Xft. Thanks, Adam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling ports
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 10:04, Adam Bender wrote: XFree86-4.2.0_1,1 There's your problem. Portupgrade to 4.3.x and try Xft and xscreensaver again. -- Adam McLaurin [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Compiling ports
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Adam McLaurin wrote: On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 15:55, Adam Bender wrote: OK, sorry to deluge the list with questions, but now I've having serious problems compiling ports. What version of XFree86 are you running? XFree86-4.2.0_1,1 Thanks, Adam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Compiling ports
OK, sorry to deluge the list with questions, but now I've having serious problems compiling ports. Xfd won't compile: === Building for Xft-2.1.2 gmake all-am gmake[1]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/x11-fonts/Xft/work/xft-2.1.2' source='xftdpy.c' object='xftdpy.lo' libtool=yes \ [...snip...] xftdpy.c: In function `XftDefaultSubstitute': xftdpy.c:484: `FC_RGBA_UNKNOWN' undeclared (first use in this function) xftdpy.c:484: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once xftdpy.c:484: for each function it appears in.) gmake[1]: *** [xftdpy.lo] Error 1 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/x11-fonts/Xft/work/xft-2.1.2' gmake: *** [all] Error 2 *** Error code 2 Stop in /usr/ports/x11-fonts/Xft. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/www/mozilla-firebird. Xscreensaver won't compile: === Building for xscreensaver-4.10 [...snip...] ./demo-Gtk.c:74: gtk/gtk.h: No such file or directory ./demo-Gtk.c:81: gdk/gdkx.h: No such file or directory In file included from ./demo-Gtk.c:113: demo-Gtk-support.h:9: gtk/gtk.h: No such file or directory In file included from ./demo-Gtk.c:112: demo-Gtk-widgets.h:5: syntax error before `*' [...snip...] gmake[1]: *** [demo-Gtk.o] Error 1 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/x11/xscreensaver/work/xscreensaver-4.10/driver' gmake: *** [all] Error 5 *** Error code 2 Stop in /usr/ports/x11/xscreensaver. I ran `make install` on both of those cases. I then wanted to use portupgrade, which installs: # uname -a FreeBSD 68.162.128.185 4.7-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE #1: Sat Nov 16 20:36:05 EST 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/adam i386# pkg_info | grep portupgrade portupgrade-20030723 FreeBSD ports/packages administration and management tool s but isn't found: # portupgrade su: portupgrade: command not found I'm about ready to pull my hair out. Any help is greatly appreciated. Adam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling ports
On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 15:55, Adam Bender wrote: OK, sorry to deluge the list with questions, but now I've having serious problems compiling ports. What version of XFree86 are you running? -- Adam McLaurin [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Compiling ports
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 03:55:57PM -0400 or thereabouts, Adam Bender wrote: [ ... ] I then wanted to use portupgrade, which installs: # uname -a FreeBSD 68.162.128.185 4.7-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE #1: Sat Nov 16 20:36:05 EST 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/adam i386# pkg_info | grep portupgrade portupgrade-20030723 FreeBSD ports/packages administration and management tool s but isn't found: # portupgrade su: portupgrade: command not found I'm about ready to pull my hair out. Any help is greatly appreciated. Try /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade -- Josh Adam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
