Hi,
Just a bit of a heads up that poudriere will require you to be on the new
version of FreeBSD before you can build for it on the current system. For
example, if you are running 12.1, and you upgrade poudriere's jail to 13.0,
it will complain that you have to be running that version on the host
@lbutlr writes:
> [...]
> Sorry for the rather basic questions.
>
I'm also a poudriere beginner and/but I found this DigitalOcean
tutorial very useful:
https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-set-up-a-poudriere-build-system-to-create-packages-for-your-freebsd-servers
g.
__
On 15 Feb 2020, at 16:32, @lbutlr wrote:
> Sorry for the rather basic questions.
Thanks everyone for your comments. One more dumb question I can’t find the
answer to.
Let’s say I want to build and install a single port via poudrier. For the same
of argument some port that has configuration opt
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:03 PM @lbutlr wrote:
> Let’s say I want to build and install a single port via poudrier. For the
> same of argument some port that has configuration options I want to change.
>
Probably not ideal since you generally want to disable the FreeBSD
repository, and use
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 09:02:39PM -0700, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2020, at 16:32, @lbutlr wrote:
> > Sorry for the rather basic questions.
>
> Thanks everyone for your comments. One more dumb question I can???t find the
> answer to.
>
> Let???s say I want to build and install a single port v
On 15 Feb 2020, at 21:43, Dan McGrath wrote:
> You would run "poudriere bulk", then sit back sipping coffee while it
> churns through all of the packages.
Hang on a second, so the intended use for poudriere is to build ALL packages?
Right now I have two jails setup, one for 12.1 amd64 and one fo
Hi!
> On 15 Feb 2020, at 21:43, Dan McGrath wrote:
> > You would run "poudriere bulk", then sit back sipping coffee while it
> > churns through all of the packages.
>
> Hang on a second, so the intended use for poudriere is to build ALL packages?
Only those you want, and automatically those, th
On 16 Feb 2020, at 02:02, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/121-default-make.conf
And this conf file applies when you use the jail named exactly “121-default”?
So for my jail named 121x64 the conf file would be
"121x64-make.conf"
And for 113x86
"113x86-make.conf"
Ok, this is s
Hi!
> On 16 Feb 2020, at 02:02, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> > /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/121-default-make.conf
>
> And this conf file applies when you use the jail named exactly '121-default'
The 121-default is the name of the jail and the name of the ports tree
used.
You can have several ports trees
On 16/02/2020 00:14, Dan McGrath wrote:
Hi,
Just a bit of a heads up that poudriere will require you to be on the new
version of FreeBSD before you can build for it on the current system. For
example, if you are running 12.1, and you upgrade poudriere's jail to 13.0,
it will complain that you ha
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 10:51 AM Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> Just a note that this is not a strict requirement. I have been upgrading
> from FreeBSD 9 to 12 currently and was always building on the same
> system that I am deploying to. Yes, poudriere will complain that the
> jail is newer than t
@lbutlr writes:
> On 15 Feb 2020, at 21:43, Dan McGrath wrote:
> > You would run "poudriere bulk", then sit back sipping coffee while it
> > churns through all of the packages.
>
> Hang on a second, so the intended use for poudriere is to build ALL
> packages?
That's not a poudriere constra
John Kennedy writes:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 09:02:39PM -0700, @lbutlr wrote:
> > [...]
> > Am I writing a config file for this every port I want to build?
>
> Personally, I have a single, custom make.conf that I maintain and shove into
> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d (default location I belie
Dan McGrath writes:
> [...] I am not sure about repo priorities, or how you would deal
> with conflicts with build options that pull in common ports. It is
> something I have been meaning to look into, sorry! Perhaps someone else
> here can give some advice?
>
One way to solve this is via "po
@lbutlr writes:
> [...]
> Not sure I quite get how the Webserver lets your other machines get
> the packages in such a way that they can be dropped in place, [...]
Nicely described in the DigitalOcean Tutorial[do]
But basically, you put your tree full of built packages somewhere
where the
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 10:18:33AM -0800, George Hartzell wrote:
> Dan McGrath writes:
> > [...] I am not sure about repo priorities, or how you would deal
> > with conflicts with build options that pull in common ports. It is
> > something I have been meaning to look into, sorry! Perhaps someon
Baptiste Daroussin writes:
>
> You should really have a look at overlays which are supported in
> poudriere-devel, it will allow you to get rid of portshaker with your use
> case:
>
> https://reviews.freebsd.org/rP510950
>
> in poudriere an overlay is just a "regular ports tree" appende
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 07:55:25AM -0800, George Hartzell wrote:
> Baptiste Daroussin writes:
> >
> > You should really have a look at overlays which are supported in
> > poudriere-devel, it will allow you to get rid of portshaker with your use
> case:
> >
> > https://reviews.freebsd.org/rP
On 2020-02-15 20:43, Dan McGrath wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:03 PM @lbutlr wrote:
Let’s say I want to build and install a single port via poudrier. For the
same of argument some port that has configuration options I want to change.
Probably not ideal since you generally want to disabl
Jose Quinteiro wrote on 2020/02/19 20:35:
On 2020-02-15 20:43, Dan McGrath wrote:
Probably not ideal since you generally want to disable the FreeBSD
repository, and use only your poudriere repo, instead. You would need to
build everything you intend to install in the jail, however. While I
bel
20 matches
Mail list logo
