Matthew Seaman wrote:
Yuri wrote:
I am seeing this for a long time. If I use 'portupgrade -aPP'
(packages only) there is a very large percentage of packages missing.
Upgrading becomes many times faster when binary packages available
are available.
Missing binary packages are due in the main to three reasons:
* Restrictive licensing terms
* Ports that through bugs, or otherwise, fail to successfully generate
a binary package. Some ports (eg. sysutils/screen up until about 2
months ago
(http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/sysutils/screen/Makefile.diff?r1=1.77;r2=1.78))
just won't package successfully, even if they build, install and run
perfectly well.
* The port has a dependency on another port that failed for reason
(2). Because the ports build cluster installs the dependencies of
the port it
is currently trying to build from binary packages, any lower level
port
that fails will prevent packages being built for anything that
depends on
it.
Thank you for this information.
Let's put aside #1. There are probably very few of those.
It still seems strange: on my system all of the ports that I need build
ok. Why would the port build successfully, but would fail to generate a
binary package? Isn't packaging just gzipping resulting binaries with
some minor additions?
Also why wouldn't the cluster build and install a port, once the package
fails? This way the #3 item is eliminated completely. Since it looks
like there is much more likely to build a port then a binary package.
Yuri
_______________________________________________
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"
