Re: dependency explosions
Graham Menhennitt wrote on 2016/10/06 01:49: Sorry, I just read that UPDATING entry again. Cyrus is only provided to Dovecot if Postfix is present. I do not have Postfix present. So, I think that I do need to install Cyrus explicitly. So, back to my original question, why does "pkg autoremove" want to uninstall Cyrus when I explicitly installed it from the port? pkg autoremove is working with pkg internal database. If you install some ports directly with command "pkg install SomePort", then this ports is nor marked as autoamtic. If some port is installed as depedency, then it is marked as automatic and if parent port is removed, then this automatic port can be deleted by "pkg autoremove" You can use "pkg query" to check what is marked as automatic pkg query '%a %n' | sort You can change this settings by "pkg set" (see man pkg-query example) EXAMPLES Change a package from automatic to non-automatic, which will prevent autoremove from removing it: % pkg set -A 0 perl-5.14 Why you need cyrus-sasl? Do you use some tools from this package or just some libs? The Dovecot / Postfix case is that Dovecot have it's own internal SASL libs and Postfix from some version have internal support for Dovecots SASL and do not need to be build with Cyrus-SASL. But it is not related to you if you are not using Postfix. Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: dependency explosions
Sorry, I just read that UPDATING entry again. Cyrus is only provided to Dovecot if Postfix is present. I do not have Postfix present. So, I think that I do need to install Cyrus explicitly. So, back to my original question, why does "pkg autoremove" want to uninstall Cyrus when I explicitly installed it from the port? Thanks, Graham On 6/10/2016 10:12 AM, Graham Menhennitt wrote: Thanks for that, olli. I didn't understand how I'd missed the fact that Dovecot now included Cyrus. So I had a look at /usr/ports/UPDATING. Searching for Dovecot shows a mention of it in the entry at 20160228. However, that's entitled "AFFECTS: users of mail/postfix", and I don't use Postfix. I think that Dovecot should have its own entry in UPDATING for that change too. Graham On 6/10/2016 9:38 AM, olli hauer wrote: Postfix in combination with dovecot doesn't require cyrus, since some months dovecot support is always provided by postfix. But i"m sorry and cannot expliain why cyrus is installed on your system -- send with broken GMX mailer client, sorry for tofu and html scrap On 06/10/2016, 00:29 Graham Menhennittwrote: On 6/10/2016 8:20 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit : >> Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove >> all the ports that were just build dependencies". > pkg autoremove > Thanks for that Mathieu - I didn't know about that one. However... When I run it, it tells me that it's going to remove my cyrus-SASL port. I installed that (via its port) so that I can use SSL/TLS authentication on my Dovecot server (installed via the dovecot2 port). So Cyrus is not a build dependency of anything - why is it offering to remove it? Thanks, Graham ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: dependency explosions
Thanks for that, olli. I didn't understand how I'd missed the fact that Dovecot now included Cyrus. So I had a look at /usr/ports/UPDATING. Searching for Dovecot shows a mention of it in the entry at 20160228. However, that's entitled "AFFECTS: users of mail/postfix", and I don't use Postfix. I think that Dovecot should have its own entry in UPDATING for that change too. Graham On 6/10/2016 9:38 AM, olli hauer wrote: Postfix in combination with dovecot doesn't require cyrus, since some months dovecot support is always provided by postfix. But i"m sorry and cannot expliain why cyrus is installed on your system -- send with broken GMX mailer client, sorry for tofu and html scrap On 06/10/2016, 00:29 Graham Menhennittwrote: On 6/10/2016 8:20 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit : >> Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove >> all the ports that were just build dependencies". > pkg autoremove > Thanks for that Mathieu - I didn't know about that one. However... When I run it, it tells me that it's going to remove my cyrus-SASL port. I installed that (via its port) so that I can use SSL/TLS authentication on my Dovecot server (installed via the dovecot2 port). So Cyrus is not a build dependency of anything - why is it offering to remove it? Thanks, Graham ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: dependency explosions
On 6/10/2016 8:20 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit : Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove all the ports that were just build dependencies". pkg autoremove Thanks for that Mathieu - I didn't know about that one. However... When I run it, it tells me that it's going to remove my cyrus-SASL port. I installed that (via its port) so that I can use SSL/TLS authentication on my Dovecot server (installed via the dovecot2 port). So Cyrus is not a build dependency of anything - why is it offering to remove it? Thanks, Graham ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: dependency explosions
On 5/10/2016 2:20 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit : Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove all the ports that were just build dependencies". pkg autoremove hmm I didn't know that would remove build deps for packages that are still installed.. if so .. good! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: dependency explosions
Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit : > Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove > all the ports that were just build dependencies". pkg autoremove -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: dependency explosions
On 5/10/2016 1:39 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: Julian Elischer wrote on 10/05/2016 22:04: On 4/10/2016 11:38 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit : On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit : There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages. Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running make config. Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming in as a dependency, as there is an increasing tendency to configure things with all the bells and whistles. The bare minimum will never be the default. The default is what will fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box. I didn't say it should be the default, I said it should be an easy to request option, (without using the config screen on each of 25000 ports) e.g. setting PORTS_CONFIG_MINIMUM before making everything. Most ports and packages are installed not because people want them, but because they are forced to do so by dependencies. Giving a way to reduce the number of unrequested packages, in a simple way would be of great use to many many people Feel free to open PR/provide patches for ports which you think need to provide more options. I think it would be a framework change. not so much a per-port change. By default, when the variable is set you take the list of options for the package, and set them all to 'unset'. The only packages that would need work would be those for which that is not a valid configuration, in which case you would supply some precanned list of options to set to unset (or similar) e.g. MIN_SETTINGS="bla foo bar" > the point is that if I'm including a port becuase it's just a prereq. then I probably want almost no options set.. The port itself can probably know what options are likely to be needed by things that need it adn can possibly supply a sensible setting but if it doesn't it might be possible to just do it automatically. It's ridiculous that a single small port can pull in python, perl and TCL (I forget which it was) along with some 40 or so other packages. There is one more problem - port A needs port B as dependency, port B can be compiled with 4 options [W,X,Y,Z], port A needs port B with option X which pull port C as dependency. So this needs to be set somewhere or else default minimal options would break some ports. any non-minimum port would trump a minimum port I would think. (and replace it?) it's just an idea. Born from frustration of not being able to do thigs because htey call in too many other things. If you call in too many other things the chance of one of them breaking gets higher. (approaches unity in some cases I think). Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: dependency explosions
Julian Elischer wrote on 10/05/2016 22:04: On 4/10/2016 11:38 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit : On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit : There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages. Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running make config. Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming in as a dependency, as there is an increasing tendency to configure things with all the bells and whistles. The bare minimum will never be the default. The default is what will fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box. I didn't say it should be the default, I said it should be an easy to request option, (without using the config screen on each of 25000 ports) e.g. setting PORTS_CONFIG_MINIMUM before making everything. Most ports and packages are installed not because people want them, but because they are forced to do so by dependencies. Giving a way to reduce the number of unrequested packages, in a simple way would be of great use to many many people Feel free to open PR/provide patches for ports which you think need to provide more options. I think it would be a framework change. not so much a per-port change. By default, when the variable is set you take the list of options for the package, and set them all to 'unset'. The only packages that would need work would be those for which that is not a valid configuration, in which case you would supply some precanned list of options to set to unset (or similar) e.g. MIN_SETTINGS="bla foo bar" > the point is that if I'm including a port becuase it's just a prereq. then I probably want almost no options set.. The port itself can probably know what options are likely to be needed by things that need it adn can possibly supply a sensible setting but if it doesn't it might be possible to just do it automatically. It's ridiculous that a single small port can pull in python, perl and TCL (I forget which it was) along with some 40 or so other packages. There is one more problem - port A needs port B as dependency, port B can be compiled with 4 options [W,X,Y,Z], port A needs port B with option X which pull port C as dependency. So this needs to be set somewhere or else default minimal options would break some ports. Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: dependency explosions
On 4/10/2016 11:38 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit : On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit : There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages. Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running make config. Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming in as a dependency, as there is an increasing tendency to configure things with all the bells and whistles. The bare minimum will never be the default. The default is what will fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box. I didn't say it should be the default, I said it should be an easy to request option, (without using the config screen on each of 25000 ports) e.g. setting PORTS_CONFIG_MINIMUM before making everything. Most ports and packages are installed not because people want them, but because they are forced to do so by dependencies. Giving a way to reduce the number of unrequested packages, in a simple way would be of great use to many many people Feel free to open PR/provide patches for ports which you think need to provide more options. I think it would be a framework change. not so much a per-port change. By default, when the variable is set you take the list of options for the package, and set them all to 'unset'. The only packages that would need work would be those for which that is not a valid configuration, in which case you would supply some precanned list of options to set to unset (or similar) e.g. MIN_SETTINGS="bla foo bar" the point is that if I'm including a port becuase it's just a prereq. then I probably want almost no options set.. The port itself can probably know what options are likely to be needed by things that need it adn can possibly supply a sensible setting but if it doesn't it might be possible to just do it automatically. It's ridiculous that a single small port can pull in python, perl and TCL (I forget which it was) along with some 40 or so other packages. Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove all the ports that were just build dependencies". ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: dependency explosions
On 10/04/16 23:18, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >> [...] >> The bare minimum will never be the default. The default is what will >> fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box. >> > I didn't say it should be the default, I said it should be an easy to > request option, > (without using the config screen on each of 25000 ports) > e.g. setting PORTS_CONFIG_MINIMUM before making everything. > [...] +1! -- George ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
poudriere jail build using -m src=
Hello, I'm attempting to create a new poudriere jail using the `-m src=/path` method. The poudriere man page states about the -m src= option; "*This directory will not be built from. It is expected that it is already built and maps to a corresponding /usr/obj directory.*". So I have first done a build world as follows; export MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX=/home/jev/obj cd /home/jev/src; make buildworld this populates /home/jev/obj as expected. Then I run; poudriere jails -c -j freebsd110_amd64 -m src=/home/jev/src -v 11.0 which fails shortly after the ">>> Installing everything" stage with the following error; "ccache: error: Could not find compiler "cc" in PATH " shortly after the "Install Everything" stage. I expect I'm overlooking something fundamental, any pointers are greatly appreciated. Thank you. Jev PS. Looking for a comitter for two new ports; https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212468 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212467 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: usage of openssl command in ports
Then you can just use: ${OPENSSLBASE}/bin/openssl to run the appropriate binary. You'ld have to use the SUB_LIST and SUB_FILES mechanism to get the resulting value substituted into pkg-install.in This is what I wanted, thanks! -- `whois vmeta.jp | nkf -w` meta___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date
Dear port maintainer, The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate, submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated, you can safely ignore the entry. You will not be e-mailed again for any of the port/version combinations below. Full details can be found at the following URL: http://portscout.freebsd.org/po...@freebsd.org.html Port| Current version | New version +-+ comms/picocom | 2.1 | 2.2 +-+ If any of the above results are invalid, please check the following page for details on how to improve portscout's detection and selection of distfiles on a per-port basis: http://portscout.freebsd.org/info/portscout-portconfig.txt Thanks. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: dependency explosions
Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit : > On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >> Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit : >>> There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages. >> Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running >> make config. >> >>> Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming in >>> as a dependency, as >>> there is an increasing tendency to configure things with all the bells >>> and whistles. >> The bare minimum will never be the default. The default is what will >> fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box. >> > I didn't say it should be the default, I said it should be an easy to > request option, > (without using the config screen on each of 25000 ports) > e.g. setting PORTS_CONFIG_MINIMUM before making everything. > Most ports and packages are installed not because people want them, > but because they are forced to do so by dependencies. > Giving a way to reduce the number of unrequested packages, in a simple > way would be of great use to many many people Feel free to open PR/provide patches for ports which you think need to provide more options. -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: usage of openssl command in ports
Le 05/10/2016 à 04:04, Koichiro IWAO a écrit : > Hi, > > I have a question about usage of openssl command in ports. > > If a port uses openssl command for example in pkg-install, how can I > determine which openssl to use? > I think if ssl=base, /usr/bin/openssl should be used. If ssl=openssl, > ${PREFIX}/bin/openssl should be used. > And other ssl ports. > > Is there something like ${OPENSSL_CMD} or do I have to do manually > like this? > > .if ${SSL_DEFAULT} == base > OPENSSL_CMD= /usr/bin/openssl > .endif > > .if ${SSL_DEFAULT} == openssl > OPENSSL_CMD= ${PREFIX}/bin/openssl > .endif It should be: .if ${SSL_DEFAULT} == base OPENSSL_CMD= /usr/bin/openssl .else OPENSSL_CMD= ${PREFIX}/bin/openssl .endif -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: usage of openssl command in ports
On 05/10/2016 03:04, Koichiro IWAO wrote: > Hi, > > I have a question about usage of openssl command in ports. > > If a port uses openssl command for example in pkg-install, how can I > determine which openssl to use? > I think if ssl=base, /usr/bin/openssl should be used. If ssl=openssl, > ${PREFIX}/bin/openssl should be used. > And other ssl ports. Correct. You can also specify ssl=libressl > Is there something like ${OPENSSL_CMD} or do I have to do manually like > this? > > .if ${SSL_DEFAULT} == base > OPENSSL_CMD= /usr/bin/openssl > .endif > > .if ${SSL_DEFAULT} == openssl > OPENSSL_CMD= ${PREFIX}/bin/openssl > .endif > > .if ${SSL_DEFAULT} == libressl > OPENSSL_CMD= "i don't know" > .endif No -- all of the openssl-like ports install an openssl binary. If your port has: USES= ssl Then you can just use: ${OPENSSLBASE}/bin/openssl to run the appropriate binary. You'ld have to use the SUB_LIST and SUB_FILES mechanism to get the resulting value substituted into pkg-install.in Cheers, Matthew signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature