Re: failed to build py27-wxpython (which is a dependency for PhotoFilmStrip I wish to package)

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 14:12, Fyodor Vassiley wrote:

> port install -d py27-wxpython
> --->  Computing dependencies for py27-wxpython
> --->  Building py27-wxpython
> Error: Target org.macports.build returned: shell command failed (see
> log for details)
> Log for py27-wxpython is at:
> /opt/local/var/macports/logs/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_release_tarballs_ports_python_py27-wxpython/py27-wxpython/main.log
> Error: Status 1 encountered during processing.
> To report a bug, see 

As always, please file a bug report in the issue tracker, if none of the 
existing tickets about py27-wxpython are about this problem. And of course 
before you do that, clean and try again so you get a clean log.


___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: compiling digikam

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 14:32, klaus wrote:

> i can not compile the digikam port. And i have no idea what causes the 
> problem. Can someone help me out? Or just point me into a direction i can 
> investigate.

As always, please file a bug report in the issue tracker.



___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Cannot port install mailx

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 14:21, James Hozier wrote:

> $ sudo port install mailx
> Password:
> Sorry, try again.
> Password:
> --->  Fetching archive for mailx
> --->  Attempting to fetch mailx-12.4_0.darwin_10.x86_64.tbz2 from 
> http://packages.macports.org/mailx
> --->  Fetching mailx
> --->  Attempting to fetch mailx-12.4.tar.bz2 from 
> http://voxel.dl.sourceforge.net/heirloom
> --->  Verifying checksum(s) for mailx
> --->  Extracting mailx
> --->  Applying patches to mailx
> --->  Configuring mailx
> --->  Building mailx
> Error: Target org.macports.build returned: shell command failed (see log for 
> details)
> Log for mailx is at: 
> /opt/local/var/macports/logs/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_release_tarballs_ports_mail_mailx/mailx/main.log
> Error: Status 1 encountered during processing.
> To report a bug, see 

As always, please file a bug report in the issue tracker and attach that 
main.log to it.



___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: howto replace old default macports.conf with latest

[Jeremy Lavergne]

> The binary build thread made me realize my 2 year old default macports.conf 
> is hopelessly out of date.  A quick search of FAQ, Guide, etc. didn't turn up 
> any advice on how best to update it, and I expect that just replacing it with 
> the latest default may not be it.  If I replace it, do I need to force an 
> update of all installed ports, or what? I'm concerned that just replacing it 
> will break things, and if I need to start from scratch, I'd rather know that 
> up front. Am I worrying needlessly? Any pointers?

The notable changes on a half year old (2011-04-14) macports.conf:
 * macportsuser changed from root to macports
 * portarchive-related settings have changed: you can't disable the mode and 
the type now defaults to tbz2
 * rsync_dir has changed to reflect our use of a tarball'd portfile directory 
(release/base to release/tarballs/base.tar)



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: howto replace old default macports.conf with latest

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 19:46, Peter Trudelle wrote:

> The binary build thread made me realize my 2 year old default macports.conf 
> is hopelessly out of date.  A quick search of FAQ, Guide, etc. didn't turn up 
> any advice on how best to update it, and I expect that just replacing it with 
> the latest default may not be it.  If I replace it, do I need to force an 
> update of all installed ports, or what? I'm concerned that just replacing it 
> will break things, and if I need to start from scratch, I'd rather know that 
> up front. Am I worrying needlessly? Any pointers?

http://trac.macports.org/wiki/Migration#Updatemacports.conf



___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 11:36, Marko Käning wrote:
> My German-English 'uncomment' == "auskommentieren" is of course a false 
> friend and I am not proud of it. ;-)
> Especially now… Now that I realized that I am almost caused a nuclear war… 
> ;-) Richard seems to have a typical dark British humour! ;-)


'auskommentieren' == 'to comment out' (or we usually just say 'comment'), 
meaning, turn the line into a comment by (in Tcl) adding a '#' to the beginning 
of the line.

'uncomment' is the opposite, meaning to remove the '#' at the beginning of the 
line to make it no longer be a comment.


___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

howto replace old default macports.conf with latest

[Peter Trudelle]

Hi,

The binary build thread made me realize my 2 year old default 
macports.conf is hopelessly out of date.  A quick search of FAQ, Guide, 
etc. didn't turn up any advice on how best to update it, and I expect 
that just replacing it with the latest default may not be it.  If I 
replace it, do I need to force an update of all installed ports, or 
what? I'm concerned that just replacing it will break things, and if I 
need to start from scratch, I'd rather know that up front. Am I worrying 
needlessly? Any pointers?


thanks,

Peter

--

Peter Trudelle
831.704.6880
pe...@trudelle.com
http://linkedin.com/in/trudelle

___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Bradley Giesbrecht]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Peter Trudelle wrote:

> No, I tried that too.
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 11/19/11 11:03 AM, Marko Käning wrote:
>> I think a --- man macports.conf --- should answer most of your questions.

This should point out most things of interest.
$ diff -u /opt/local/etc/macports/macports.conf.default 
/opt/local/etc/macports/macports.conf

Copy macports.conf.default to macports.conf and make any changes you desire, 
after backing up your old macports.conf if you desire.

Regards,
Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)

___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Unable to configure any packages when MacPort is active

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 16:30, Rodolfo Aramayo wrote:

> export PATH=/opt/local/lib:$PATH

There are no programs in lib directories; there's no reason to have a lib 
directory in your PATH.

___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Unable to configure any packages when MacPort is active

[Rodolfo Aramayo]

Thanks Brandon

That seems to help

I re-installed coreutils, just in case

Thanks

--R

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 16:52, Brandon Allbery  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 17:43, Rodolfo Aramayo  wrote:
>
>> People,
>>
>> So I found the culprit and it is:
>>
>> coreutils @8.14 (sysutils)
>> GNU File, Shell, and Text utilities
>>
>
> Remove /opt/local/libexec/gnubin from your $PATH; that's where coreutils
> is overriding all the system utilities, usually to the great confusion of
> configure (which is generally smart enough to look for g if the system
>  isn't good enough).
>
> The whole reason non-prefixed stuff got moved to /opt/local/libexec/gnubin
> is that it's a *lovely* way to confuse the heck out of programs.
>
> --
> brandon s allbery  allber...@gmail.com
> wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms
>
>
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Unable to configure any packages when MacPort is active

[Brandon Allbery]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 17:43, Rodolfo Aramayo  wrote:

> People,
>
> So I found the culprit and it is:
>
> coreutils @8.14 (sysutils)
> GNU File, Shell, and Text utilities
>

Remove /opt/local/libexec/gnubin from your $PATH; that's where coreutils is
overriding all the system utilities, usually to the great confusion of
configure (which is generally smart enough to look for g if the system
 isn't good enough).

The whole reason non-prefixed stuff got moved to /opt/local/libexec/gnubin
is that it's a *lovely* way to confuse the heck out of programs.

-- 
brandon s allbery  allber...@gmail.com
wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Unable to configure any packages when MacPort is active

[Rodolfo Aramayo]

People,

So I found the culprit and it is:

coreutils @8.14 (sysutils)
GNU File, Shell, and Text utilities

When I activate MacPorts and uninstall coreutils, everything seems to be
working well

How do we proceed now?

Thanks

--R
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Unable to configure any packages when MacPort is active

[Rodolfo Aramayo]

People,

I am having the most unusual problem

Ports is working just fine and by fine I mean I can upgrade and install
packages without any problems

Until few weeks ago I was able to install non-macports programs by myself.
This is, I was able to ./configure, make and sudo make install
This morning I decided to upgrade some non-macport packages and to my
surprise I discovered that the command './configure' just hangs in there,
unable to do anything
I did a series of tests and was able to follow the problem to MacPorts.
This is, if I comment out the:

export PATH=/opt/local/bin:/opt/local/sbin:$PATH
export PATH=/opt/local/lib:$PATH
export PATH=/opt/local/libexec/gnubin:$PATH
export MANPATH=/opt/local/share/man:$MANPATH

present in my ~/.bashrc file

I can now not only run the './configure' command, but 'make' and 'sudo make
install'

Obviously, something has changed recently in MacPorts that is causing this
problem (I know this was working fine before) and whatever it is is causing
the same problem in all my machines (12 total)

I need help identifying the Port that is causing this...

Thanks

--R
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Cannot port install mailx

[Lawrence Velázquez]

Could you post that log 
(/opt/local/var/macports/logs/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_release_tarballs_ports_mail_mailx/mailx/main.log)
 to a public site or attach it?

vq

On Nov 19, 2011, at 3:21 p.m., James Hozier wrote:

> $ sudo port install mailx
> Password:
> Sorry, try again.
> Password:
> --->  Fetching archive for mailx
> --->  Attempting to fetch mailx-12.4_0.darwin_10.x86_64.tbz2 from 
> http://packages.macports.org/mailx
> --->  Fetching mailx
> --->  Attempting to fetch mailx-12.4.tar.bz2 from 
> http://voxel.dl.sourceforge.net/heirloom
> --->  Verifying checksum(s) for mailx
> --->  Extracting mailx
> --->  Applying patches to mailx
> --->  Configuring mailx
> --->  Building mailx
> Error: Target org.macports.build returned: shell command failed (see log for 
> details)
> Log for mailx is at: 
> /opt/local/var/macports/logs/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_release_tarballs_ports_mail_mailx/mailx/main.log
> Error: Status 1 encountered during processing.
> To report a bug, see 
> $
> ___
> macports-users mailing list
> macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: compiling digikam

[Jeremy Lavergne]

> i can not compile the digikam port. And i have no idea what causes the 
> problem. Can someone help me out? Or just point me into a direction i can 
> investigate.
> Build log can be found at: 
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8286796/digikam_problem_main.log
> 
> The only guess i have is, that it has to do something with gcc/llvm-gcc. But 
> as i am not very sure about this, i ask for help.
> 
> Many thanks in advance.

First try building with only one make job (defaults to number of cores):

sudo port clean digikam
sudo port install digikam build.jobs=1

If that doesn't work, then try using a different compiler (MacPorts is using 
clang for you, presently):

sudo port clean digikam
sudo port install digikam configure.compiler=llvm-gcc-4.2

It's also possible that the source code needs more parenthesis to help the new 
compilers figure out what's going on. I'd leave that for the port maintainer to 
try.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

compiling digikam

[klaus]

Hi all,

i can not compile the digikam port. And i have no idea what causes the
problem. Can someone help me out? Or just point me into a direction i can
investigate.
Build log can be found at:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8286796/digikam_problem_main.log

The only guess i have is, that it has to do something with gcc/llvm-gcc.
But as i am not very sure about this, i ask for help.

Many thanks in advance.

Regards
klaus
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Cannot port install mailx

[James Hozier]

$ sudo port install mailx
Password:
Sorry, try again.
Password:
--->  Fetching archive for mailx
--->  Attempting to fetch mailx-12.4_0.darwin_10.x86_64.tbz2 from 
http://packages.macports.org/mailx
--->  Fetching mailx
--->  Attempting to fetch mailx-12.4.tar.bz2 from 
http://voxel.dl.sourceforge.net/heirloom
--->  Verifying checksum(s) for mailx
--->  Extracting mailx
--->  Applying patches to mailx
--->  Configuring mailx
--->  Building mailx
Error: Target org.macports.build returned: shell command failed (see log for 
details)
Log for mailx is at: 
/opt/local/var/macports/logs/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_release_tarballs_ports_mail_mailx/mailx/main.log
Error: Status 1 encountered during processing.
To report a bug, see 
$
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Peter Trudelle]

No, I tried that too.

Peter

On 11/19/11 11:03 AM, Marko Käning wrote:

I think a --- man macports.conf --- should answer most of your questions.

--

Peter Trudelle
831.704.6880
pe...@trudelle.com
http://linkedin.com/in/trudelle

___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Peter Trudelle wrote:
> This thread made me realize my 2 year old default macports.conf is hopelessly 
> out of date.  A quick search of FAQ, Guide, etc. didn't turn up any advice on 
> how best to update it, and I expect that just replacing it with the latest 
> default may not work.  Any pointers?

I think a
---
man macports.conf
---
should answer most of your questions.
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Peter Trudelle]

This thread made me realize my 2 year old default macports.conf is 
hopelessly out of date.  A quick search of FAQ, Guide, etc. didn't turn 
up any advice on how best to update it, and I expect that just replacing 
it with the latest default may not work.  Any pointers?


thanks,

Peter

On 11/19/11 10:02 AM, Dominik Reichardt wrote:


On 19.11.2011, at 18:42, Marko Käning wrote:

No, it means there *aren't* any, because the few ports that have 
that capability in their source aren't anywhere near enough to 
bother with the additional complexity of trying to support it in the 
buildbot.

OK, now you successfully annihilated my last bit of hope. ;-)


When you think of how dynamic linking of binaries with libraries and 
other stuff is done, it is clear that MacPorts could never provide 
precompiled binaries for a custom prefix. Unless, of course, 
everything were built static which poses much more problems on OS X :)


Dom


___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users



--

Peter Trudelle
831.704.6880
pe...@trudelle.com
http://linkedin.com/in/trudelle

___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Brandon Allbery]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:26, Marko Käning  wrote:

> On Nov 19, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> > Sadly, very few of the packages that MacPorts manages come with support
> for alternate prefixes at runtime.
> Ah, ok, that means there are indeed binary packages which could be
> installed with alternate


No, it means there *aren't* any, because the few ports that have that
capability in their source aren't anywhere near enough to bother with the
additional complexity of trying to support it in the buildbot.

-- 
brandon s allbery  allber...@gmail.com
wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Dominik Reichardt]

On 19.11.2011, at 18:42, Marko Käning wrote:

>> No, it means there *aren't* any, because the few ports that have that 
>> capability in their source aren't anywhere near enough to bother with the 
>> additional complexity of trying to support it in the buildbot.
> OK, now you successfully annihilated my last bit of hope. ;-)

When you think of how dynamic linking of binaries with libraries and other 
stuff is done, it is clear that MacPorts could never provide precompiled 
binaries for a custom prefix. Unless, of course, everything were built static 
which poses much more problems on OS X :)

Dom___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 6:40 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> No, it means there *aren't* any, because the few ports that have that 
> capability in their source aren't anywhere near enough to bother with the 
> additional complexity of trying to support it in the buildbot.
OK, now you successfully annihilated my last bit of hope. ;-)

___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Dominik Reichardt wrote:
> Am 19.11.2011 um 12:59 schrieb Joshua Root :
>> On 28164-7-23 05:59 , Marko Käning wrote:
>>> Well, Josh, that setting was indeed a MUST for me to get the binary port 
>>> installation working for my /opt/local MacPorts install.
>>> Actually I uncommented:
>>> ---
>>> #portarchivetypetgz
>>> ---
>>> and things started working. :-)
>> 
>> I was discussing how it should work, not how it does. I think you've got
>> your story backwards though; uncommenting that line would have made it
>> *stop* working since the server only has tbz2 archives.
> 
> He he, indeed this should work when he uncomments the tgz, the default (tbz2) 
> kicks in ;)

I am sorry for having caused so much confusion!

My German-English 'uncomment' == "auskommentieren" is of course a false friend 
and I am not proud of it. ;-)
Especially now… Now that I realized that I am almost caused a nuclear war… ;-) 
Richard seems to have a typical dark British humour! ;-)

Well, just to clarify this unambiguously once and for all, what I meant was 
that I COMMENTED the portarchievetype parameter and then - as Dominik already 
wrote - the default kicks in, being tbz2!

:-)
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> Sadly, very few of the packages that MacPorts manages come with support for 
> alternate prefixes at runtime.
Ah, ok, that means there are indeed binary packages which could be installed 
with alternate prefixes??
If so, how is that achieved?
Can you name an example, Brandon?
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Brandon Allbery]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 05:27, Marko Käning  wrote:

> I wonder whether there will be support for alternative prefixes, if that's
> possible at all…


Sadly, very few of the packages that MacPorts manages come with support for
alternate prefixes at runtime.

-- 
brandon s allbery  allber...@gmail.com
wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Phil Dobbin]

On 19/11/11 13:17, "Richard L. Hamilton"  wrote:

> Ok, there's only one English language (well, two, but the Brits are just
> wrong).

It is called the Queen's English for a very good reason my young, colonial
friend ;-).

Cheers,

Phil...

-- 
Nothing to see here... move along, move along

___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Richard L. Hamilton]

Ok, there's only one English language (well, two, but the Brits are just wrong).

This line is commented out:

# run global_thermonuclear_war

To uncomment the line is to remove the notation that makes it only a comment, 
and perhaps thereby allow the line to be acted on by whatever program reads the 
file.  In the example, the "#" character at the beginning of the line makes it 
a comment, so to uncomment the line would be to remove that character, leaving:

run global_thermonuclear_war


Now, how about a nice game of chess?   :-)

___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Dominik Reichardt]

Am 19.11.2011 um 13:53 schrieb Harald Hanche-Olsen :

> [Dominik Reichardt  (2011-11-19 12:17:00 UTC)]
> 
> [...]
 Actually I uncommented:
 ---
 #portarchivetypetgz
 ---
 and things started working. :-)
>>> 
>>> I was discussing how it should work, not how it does. I think you've got
>>> your story backwards though; uncommenting that line would have made it
>>> *stop* working since the server only has tbz2 archives.
>> 
>> He he, indeed this should work when he uncomments the tgz, the default 
>> (tbz2) kicks in ;)
> 
> I wonder if you and others are using the word "uncomment" in the opposite 
> sense of the rest of us?

Now that you mention it... Seems very likely ;)

Dom
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Harald Hanche-Olsen]

[Dominik Reichardt  (2011-11-19 12:17:00 UTC)]

[...]
> >> Actually I uncommented:
> >> ---
> >> #portarchivetypetgz
> >> ---
> >> and things started working. :-)
> > 
> > I was discussing how it should work, not how it does. I think you've got
> > your story backwards though; uncommenting that line would have made it
> > *stop* working since the server only has tbz2 archives.
> 
> He he, indeed this should work when he uncomments the tgz, the default (tbz2) 
> kicks in ;)

I wonder if you and others are using the word "uncomment" in the opposite sense 
of the rest of us?

- Harald
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Dominik Reichardt]

Am 19.11.2011 um 12:59 schrieb Joshua Root :

> On 28164-7-23 05:59 , Marko Käning wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
>>> That setting should really just control what kind of archives are
>>> generated locally, and there needs to be another one associated with
>>> each archive source indicating what archive type(s) it provides. Of
>>> course there's no way to configure multiple archive sources yet either
>>> (apart from ARCHIVE_SITE_LOCAL with all its limitations). Maybe in 2.1.
>> 
>> Well, Josh, that setting was indeed a MUST for me to get the binary port 
>> installation working for my /opt/local MacPorts install.
>> Actually I uncommented:
>> ---
>> #portarchivetypetgz
>> ---
>> and things started working. :-)
> 
> I was discussing how it should work, not how it does. I think you've got
> your story backwards though; uncommenting that line would have made it
> *stop* working since the server only has tbz2 archives.

He he, indeed this should work when he uncomments the tgz, the default (tbz2) 
kicks in ;)
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
> I was discussing how it should work, not how it does. I think you've got
> your story backwards though; uncommenting that line would have made it
> *stop* working since the server only has tbz2 archives.
Do I?
I thought tbz2 is the new default?!
I uncommented the parameter and it WORKS now with binary ports!

So, have we got a mixup somehow? :-)
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Joshua Root]

On 28164-7-23 05:59 , Marko Käning wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
>> That setting should really just control what kind of archives are
>> generated locally, and there needs to be another one associated with
>> each archive source indicating what archive type(s) it provides. Of
>> course there's no way to configure multiple archive sources yet either
>> (apart from ARCHIVE_SITE_LOCAL with all its limitations). Maybe in 2.1.
> 
> Well, Josh, that setting was indeed a MUST for me to get the binary port 
> installation working for my /opt/local MacPorts install.
> Actually I uncommented:
> ---
> #portarchivetypetgz
> ---
> and things started working. :-)

I was discussing how it should work, not how it does. I think you've got
your story backwards though; uncommenting that line would have made it
*stop* working since the server only has tbz2 archives.

- Josh
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
> That's because it no longer exists. Archive mode has been combined with
> image mode and you can't turn it off (because there is no alternative).
Is portarchivepath also not used anymore?
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
> That's because it no longer exists. Archive mode has been combined with
> image mode and you can't turn it off (because there is no alternative).

Ah, ok, will eliminate it from my confs then. Thanks.
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
> That setting should really just control what kind of archives are
> generated locally, and there needs to be another one associated with
> each archive source indicating what archive type(s) it provides. Of
> course there's no way to configure multiple archive sources yet either
> (apart from ARCHIVE_SITE_LOCAL with all its limitations). Maybe in 2.1.

Well, Josh, that setting was indeed a MUST for me to get the binary port 
installation working for my /opt/local MacPorts install.
Actually I uncommented:
---
#portarchivetypetgz
---
and things started working. :-)

(I've understood by now that the other parallel installations won't be able to 
benefit from this new feature, since relocation isn't possible.)
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Joshua Root]

On 28164-7-23 05:59 , Marko Käning wrote:
> ---
> # Create and use binary archive packages for installation/reinstallation ease
> portarchivemode no
> ---
> 
> Hmmm, this is not even documented in macports.conf's man page?

That's because it no longer exists. Archive mode has been combined with
image mode and you can't turn it off (because there is no alternative).

- Josh
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Joshua Root]

Scott Webster wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Marko K?ning  
> wrote:
>> Looks like - since buildbot made his way through all port files - it is 
>> possible to install binary packages, is that true?
>>
>> If so, how could that be enable in a local MacPorts installation? (From what 
>> I see all my installations still configure and build all their ports 
>> themselves)
>>
> 
> I think it should be automatic.  Maybe check that your portarchivetype
> line is tbz2 (or commented out) in macports.conf.  Somehow mine was
> set to something else and it wouldn't use the binaries.

That setting should really just control what kind of archives are
generated locally, and there needs to be another one associated with
each archive source indicating what archive type(s) it provides. Of
course there's no way to configure multiple archive sources yet either
(apart from ARCHIVE_SITE_LOCAL with all its limitations). Maybe in 2.1.

- Josh
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> I wonder whether there will be support for alternative prefixes, if that's 
>> possible at all…
> I suspect this will never happen. Things installed with MacPorts have never 
> been very relocatable. Sorry.

Too sad. ;-)

But I can live with it, since the number of binary ports interesting for my 
purposes is obviously not that large.


BTW, is there a way to determine beforehand whether a binary installation of a 
certain port would be possible?
I imagine that "port info PORTNAME" could tell me beforehand.

Something like
---
$ port info xz
xz @5.0.3 (archivers)
Variants: universal
Platforms:darwin
License:  public-domain GPL-2+
.
Binary: yes
---

What do you think?
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 04:27, Marko Käning wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> Also if you've compiled MacPorts in a different prefix than /opt/local you 
>> can't get the binaries.
> Ha, THIS IS MY PROBLEM with respect to my other MacPorts trees.
> They are NOT using /opt/local, but /opt/macports-test or /opt/clean-slate or 
> stuff like that…
> 
> I wonder whether there will be support for alternative prefixes, if that's 
> possible at all…

I suspect this will never happen. Things installed with MacPorts have never 
been very relocatable. Sorry.



___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Try to install a port for which you see that an archive is available at 
> http://packages.macports.org. Does the archive get downloaded and used? Then 
> you are capable of using binaries.
Yep, it works - as already posted - for one of my MacPorts trees. :-)
And that's the one located below /opt/local … ;-)

> I don't know the complete list of requirements. Archive type tbz2 is 
> necessary as you found, as are the conditions I mentioned earlier.
Yep

> Also if you've compiled MacPorts in a different prefix than /opt/local you 
> can't get the binaries.
Ha, THIS IS MY PROBLEM with respect to my other MacPorts trees.
They are NOT using /opt/local, but /opt/macports-test or /opt/clean-slate or 
stuff like that…

I wonder whether there will be support for alternative prefixes, if that's 
possible at all…





> If you have applications_dir or frameworks_dir set differently than the 
> defaults, you'll still get the binaries, but applications and frameworks will 
> go in their default locations, not your changed locations; we need to fix 
> that, maybe by disabling binaries if you've changed applications_dir or 
> frameworks_dir. There is a ticket.
OK, good to know. Will try to find that ticket now...

> My observation is that the archive that's downloaded takes the place of the 
> one you would have otherwise compiled. Uninstalling the port deletes the 
> archive (whether you built it or it got downloaded). Reinstalling the port 
> requires downloading (or building) the archive again.
Yep.
Well, one has to admit, it's still so much quicker than building everything 
yourself. :-)
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 02:46, Marko Käning wrote:

> How can I verify whether my setup is capable or not to use the new binary 
> installs?

Try to install a port for which you see that an archive is available at 
http://packages.macports.org. Does the archive get downloaded and used? Then 
you are capable of using binaries.


On Nov 19, 2011, at 03:19, Marko Käning wrote:

> That's funny, I've got one MacPorts installation which now uses the binary 
> install method and I've got another MacPorts installation which obviously 
> doesn't use it, although the macports.conf's are seemingly more or less 
> identical.
> 
> What are the *necessary* settings to allow binary installs?

I don't know the complete list of requirements. Archive type tbz2 is necessary 
as you found, as are the conditions I mentioned earlier. Also if you've 
compiled MacPorts in a different prefix than /opt/local you can't get the 
binaries. If you have applications_dir or frameworks_dir set differently than 
the defaults, you'll still get the binaries, but applications and frameworks 
will go in their default locations, not your changed locations; we need to fix 
that, maybe by disabling binaries if you've changed applications_dir or 
frameworks_dir. There is a ticket.


On Nov 19, 2011, at 03:44, Marko Käning wrote:

> And it looks like port ALWAYS DOWNLOADS the tbz2 file from the server, even 
> if it had done that previously.
> Is there no caching for binary files like it is done for tarballs?

My observation is that the archive that's downloaded takes the place of the one 
you would have otherwise compiled. Uninstalling the port deletes the archive 
(whether you built it or it got downloaded). Reinstalling the port requires 
downloading (or building) the archive again.


___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

And it looks like port ALWAYS DOWNLOADS the tbz2 file from the server, even if 
it had done that previously.
Is there no caching for binary files like it is done for tarballs?
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

That's funny, I've got one MacPorts installation which now uses the binary 
install method and I've got another MacPorts installation which obviously 
doesn't use it, although the macports.conf's are seemingly more or less 
identical.

What are the *necessary* settings to allow binary installs?
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

Thanks so much Scott!

On Nov 19, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Marko Käning wrote:
> I have here
> ---
> portarchivetype tgz
> ---
> 
> but that's probably not so much the point…

THAT WAS EXACTLY THE POINT.

tbz2 might be NOW the default setting, but it wasn't in my macports.conf, very 
probably because it's a quite old one…

It looks like the selfupdate didn't highlight enough that this setting should 
be changed by the user!

Installation is now, of course, SO MUCH FASTER!!!

What a relief!

Greets,
Marko___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 9:38 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> We haven't announced it yet, but you might have noticed talk about it on the 
> -dev list.
Somehow it went past my attention. :-(

> In fact there's no way to globally turn it off. MacPorts will use binaries if 
> they're available, unless you use the "-s" switch for a particular install.
OK… I see. I thought that 

portarchivemode

could achieve that...

> Binaries are available for some ports' default variants for Snow Leopard for 
> x86_64. If you have i386, or want universal, or have Leopard or Tiger, or 
> want a non-default variant, you'll still build from source.
I'm still running snow leopard on x86_64… Probably some ports are installed in 
their i386 variant or universal.

How can I verify whether my setup is capable or not to use the new binary 
installs?
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

Thanks Scott,

On Nov 19, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Scott Webster wrote:
> I think it should be automatic.  Maybe check that your portarchivetype
> line is tbz2 (or commented out) in macports.conf.  Somehow mine was
> set to something else and it wouldn't use the binaries.


I have here
---
portarchivetype tgz
---

but that's probably not so much the point…

Looks like this setting is the culprit in my case:
---
# Create and use binary archive packages for installation/reinstallation ease
portarchivemode no
---

Hmmm, this is not even documented in macports.conf's man page…

Greets,
Marko
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 02:09, Marko Käning wrote:

> On Nov 19, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Roger Pack wrote:
>> Hey thanks for all those binary builds--they probably saved me a heap
>> of time today.  The speed just doesn't compare it's so much faster
>> now. Thanks!
> 
> Ooops, I obviously missed this somehow...

We haven't announced it yet, but you might have noticed talk about it on the 
-dev list.


> Looks like - since buildbot made his way through all port files - it is 
> possible to install binary packages, is that true?
> 
> If so, how could that be enable in a local MacPorts installation?

In fact there's no way to globally turn it off. MacPorts will use binaries if 
they're available, unless you use the "-s" switch for a particular install.


> (From what I see all my installations still configure and build all their 
> ports themselves)

Binaries are available for some ports' default variants for Snow Leopard for 
x86_64. If you have i386, or want universal, or have Leopard or Tiger, or want 
a non-default variant, you'll still build from source.


___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Re: Binary builds???

[Scott Webster]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Marko Käning  wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Roger Pack wrote:
> Ooops, I obviously missed this somehow...
>
> Looks like - since buildbot made his way through all port files - it is 
> possible to install binary packages, is that true?
>
> If so, how could that be enable in a local MacPorts installation? (From what 
> I see all my installations still configure and build all their ports 
> themselves)
>

I think it should be automatic.  Maybe check that your portarchivetype
line is tbz2 (or commented out) in macports.conf.  Somehow mine was
set to something else and it wouldn't use the binaries.

Scott
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Binary builds???

[Marko Käning]

On Nov 19, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Roger Pack wrote:
> Hey thanks for all those binary builds--they probably saved me a heap
> of time today.  The speed just doesn't compare it's so much faster
> now. Thanks!

Ooops, I obviously missed this somehow...

Looks like - since buildbot made his way through all port files - it is 
possible to install binary packages, is that true?

If so, how could that be enable in a local MacPorts installation? (From what I 
see all my installations still configure and build all their ports themselves)

Greets,
Marko
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users