Re: new package system proposal

Sorry to jump in late. On Saturday 04 April 2009 16:13:22 Chris Whitehouse wrote: > pkg_add somewhat addresses this but it doesn't work quite as well as > ports because of possible version mismatches. > > The suggestion below is not aimed at servers because they have > completely different requir

Re: new package system proposal

Ok here's an improved description of how it works. The key to the whole thing is the snapshot of the ports tree. Everything else follows from that. Build process: A predetermined set of packages is built from a ports tree. The most benefit comes with packages which would acceptable for use with t

Re: new package system proposal

Polytropon wrote: On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:25:13 +0100, Chris Whitehouse wrote: Is there a quick way to find out how big are the tarballs without downloading them all or adding them up one by one? I think it's possible to obtain an FTP ls listing and then use awk to get the column with the size

Re: new package system proposal

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:25:13 +0100, Chris Whitehouse wrote: > Is there a quick way to find out how big are the tarballs without > downloading them all or adding them up one by one? I think it's possible to obtain an FTP ls listing and then use awk to get the column with the size (in bytes) and a

Re: new package system proposal

Bob Johnson wrote: On 4/8/09, Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Tuesday 07 April 2009 23:35:03 Bob Johnson wrote: On 4/4/09, Chris Whitehouse wrote: The drawback I can see is the disk space required to keep several generations of packages online - if the package-port bundle is rebuilt every three

Re: new package system proposal

Bob Johnson wrote: - reduced energy use for everyone. I think the difference in energy use would be so small as to be pointless. If I have a system that consumes 75 kilowatt hours per month, and I spend an extra 0.05 kilowatt hour per month updating ports, is the difference (less than 1/10 of

Re: new package system proposal

Nino wrote: > I'd like to use this opportunity to generally support this and any > other ideas taking direction of making binary installs and upgrades > easier and more manageable. You may be interested to read http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~talon/freebsdports.html and to consider playing with htt

RE: new package system proposal

09, 2009 10:54 AM To: 'n j'; 'User Questions' Subject: RE: new package system proposal This is the kinda B$ I'm talking about. Trying to install krb5 from ports, and after 2 hours (or more) of finding and compiling dependencies and whatever else "make" does -

RE: new package system proposal

*** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/security/krb5. -Original Message- From: Gary Gatten Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 10:46 AM To: 'n j'; User Questions Subject: RE: new package system proposal I haven't worked with *nix os's as much as FreeBSD - Well, maybe differe

RE: new package system proposal

ebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of n j Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 3:15 AM To: User Questions Subject: Re: new package system proposal I'd like to use this opportunity to generally support this and any other ideas taking direction of making binary installs and upg

Re: new package system proposal

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:16:12 +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote: > Yes - have a look at . I installed PC-BSD on a spare > machine to investigate it. The first three ports/metaports I tried to install > after completing the base setup were emacs, TeTeX and the Psi Jabber/XMPP >

Re: new package system proposal

I'd like to use this opportunity to generally support this and any other ideas taking direction of making binary installs and upgrades easier and more manageable. I recognize the need for people to configure custom options and compile from ports (that is why any new system *must* be compatible with

Re: new package system proposal

On Wednesday 08 April 2009 21:24:00 Bob Johnson wrote: > PC-BSD seems to already keep up-to-date binary packages of their > applications. Do they accomplish that by only offering a small subset > of the full ports collection? Yes - have a look at . I installed PC-BSD on a s

Re: new package system proposal

On 4/8/09, Jonathan McKeown wrote: > On Tuesday 07 April 2009 23:35:03 Bob Johnson wrote: >> On 4/4/09, Chris Whitehouse wrote: >> > Hi all >> >> [...] >> >> > My suggestion is to start with a ports tree that is fixed in time. Make >> > that ports tree available as part of this package system and

Re: new package system proposal

On Tuesday 07 April 2009 23:35:03 Bob Johnson wrote: > On 4/4/09, Chris Whitehouse wrote: > > Hi all > > [...] > > > My suggestion is to start with a ports tree that is fixed in time. Make > > that ports tree available as part of this package system and compile a > > typical desktop set of ports,

Re: new package system proposal

On 4/4/09, Chris Whitehouse wrote: > Hi all > [...] > > My suggestion is to start with a ports tree that is fixed in time. Make > that ports tree available as part of this package system and compile a > typical desktop set of ports, particularly choosing ones which are large > or have many depende

Re: new package system proposal

Matthew Seaman wrote: Chris Whitehouse wrote: You've suggested solutions to a couple of Polytropon's objections, thank you. Do you think there is anough mileage in my suggestion to make it worth putting in front of some ports people? What would have to happen to take it forward? I could rewri

Re: new package system proposal

Chris Whitehouse wrote: You've suggested solutions to a couple of Polytropon's objections, thank you. Do you think there is anough mileage in my suggestion to make it worth putting in front of some ports people? What would have to happen to take it forward? I could rewrite the proposal more cl

Re: new package system proposal

per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: Chris Whitehouse wrote: My suggestion is to start with a ports tree that is fixed in time. Make that ports tree available as part of this package system and compile a typical desktop set of ports ... Isn't this exactly what is currently done as part of a release?

Re: new package system proposal

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:48:01 +0100, Chris Whitehouse wrote: > Hmm Polytropon you seem to be dismissing my idea with minor examples. Actually not, because I'm a big fan of pkg_add -r. :-) I honestly run older machines, the oldest one is a P1 150MHz with 128 MB EDO-RAM where compiling is no fun at

Re: new package system proposal

Matthew Seaman wrote: Polytropon wrote: Compiling applications in general will lead you into one main problem: Many ports have different options that need to be set at compile time. For a set of n options, 2^n packages would be created, if I consider the WITH_SOMETHING options only. One examp

Re: new package system proposal

Hmm Polytropon you seem to be dismissing my idea with minor examples. I am convinced it could work, and that people would appreciate it. I've tried to answer your points, apologies if I have misunderstood any of them. Polytropon wrote: Compiling applications in general will lead you into one mai

Re: new package system proposal

Chris Whitehouse wrote: > My suggestion is to start with a ports tree that is fixed in time. > Make that ports tree available as part of this package system and > compile a typical desktop set of ports ... Isn't this exactly what is currently done as part of a release? The ports tree is tagged s

Re: new package system proposal

Polytropon wrote: Compiling applications in general will lead you into one main problem: Many ports have different options that need to be set at compile time. For a set of n options, 2^n packages would be created, if I consider the WITH_SOMETHING options only. One example is mplayer. Its vari

Re: new package system proposal

Compiling applications in general will lead you into one main problem: Many ports have different options that need to be set at compile time. For a set of n options, 2^n packages would be created, if I consider the WITH_SOMETHING options only. One example is mplayer. Its various options select whi