Re: dependency explosions

Thanks Miroslav, Cyrus is marked as automatic and I don't understand why that is. But I've removed it as I only needed its libraries for Dovecot and, as you pointed out, that isn't necessary any more. All working! Thanks for your reply, Graham On 06/10/2016 11:23, Miroslav Lachman wrote: >

Re: dependency explosions

On 05/10/2016 23:29, Graham Menhennitt wrote: > 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

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"

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Re: dependency explosions

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:21:30AM +1100, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > Is there a way to display these dependencies in a tree structure? http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portdependencytree.py?category=x11=kde4 It's slow because I do not store dependencies in the database, so it recalculates it on the

Re: dependency explosions

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

Re: dependency explosions

Hi! > > The problem is to add code to allow variants is complex and needs > > engineering power. > But regarding the > changes that would be required to only allow other variants, why do you > say it would be complex? Wouldn't that be only a change in pkg so that > it can handle dependencies

Re: dependency explosions

On 04/10/2016 05:09, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! Right now, we build packages for [9,10,11,12]x[amd64,i386]x[head,quarterly], that's 16 different sets, and we mostly manage to build them over and over again, every two days. Imagine how long it would take to build 320 sets. You are trying to take

Re: dependency explosions

Hi! > > Right now, we build packages for > > [9,10,11,12]x[amd64,i386]x[head,quarterly], that's 16 different sets, > > and we mostly manage to build them over and over again, every two days. > > Imagine how long it would take to build 320 sets. > You are trying to take that into extreme to

Re: dependency explosions

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. but you can never really know the effect. there should

Re: dependency explosions

Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote on 10/04/2016 01:21: [...] Chromium? Opera? Emacs? Both OpenOffice and LibreOffice? I don't know if this always happens, but there's an issue here. I have a few unfinished thoughts about how it could occur, but so far all I can confirm is that there is an issue.

Re: dependency explosions

On Monday, 3 October 2016 at 20:41:08 -0400, Baho Utot wrote: > > On 10/03/16 19:21, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> On Monday, 3 October 2016 at 14:14:13 +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >>> Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit : Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the

Re: dependency explosions

On 10/03/16 19:21, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: On Monday, 3 October 2016 at 14:14:13 +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit : Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming in as a dependency, as there is an increasing tendency to

Re: dependency explosions

On Monday, 3 October 2016 at 14:14:13 +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit : >> 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

Re: dependency explosions

Miroslav Lachman wrote on 10/03/2016 15:29: Grzegorz Junka wrote on 10/03/2016 15:11: On 03/10/2016 12:14, 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

Re: dependency explosions

On 03/10/2016 14:48, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 03/10/2016 à 16:29, Grzegorz Junka a écrit : On 03/10/2016 14:11, Mike Clarke wrote: On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 + Grzegorz Junka wrote: Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not mistaken FreeBSD is

Re: dependency explosions

Le 03/10/2016 à 16:57, Matthieu Volat a écrit : > On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:29:27 + > Grzegorz Junka wrote: > >> On 03/10/2016 14:11, Mike Clarke wrote: >>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 + >>> Grzegorz Junka wrote: >>> Shouldn't all packages default to

Re: dependency explosions

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:29:27 + Grzegorz Junka wrote: > On 03/10/2016 14:11, Mike Clarke wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 + > > Grzegorz Junka wrote: > > > >> Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not mistaken > >> FreeBSD is

Re: dependency explosions

Le 03/10/2016 à 16:29, Grzegorz Junka a écrit : > > On 03/10/2016 14:11, Mike Clarke wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 + >> Grzegorz Junka wrote: >> >>> Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not >>> mistaken >>> FreeBSD is predominantly a

Re: dependency explosions

On 03/10/2016 14:11, Mike Clarke wrote: On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 + Grzegorz Junka wrote: Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not mistaken FreeBSD is predominantly a server-side system, with X running only occasionally I'd disagree with that.

Re: dependency explosions

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 + Grzegorz Junka wrote: > Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not mistaken > FreeBSD is predominantly a server-side system, with X running only > occasionally I'd disagree with that. I don't know whether or not the

Re: dependency explosions

Grzegorz Junka wrote on 10/03/2016 15:11: On 03/10/2016 12:14, 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

Re: dependency explosions

On 03/10/2016 12:14, 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

Re: dependency explosions

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 >

Re: dependency explosions

Julian Elischer wrote on 10/01/2016 04:35: Hi ports people. It seems to me that there has been an explosion in ports dependencies recently. Things that used to need a few dependencies are now pulling in things one would never imagine. We just had to add the openjdk7 port to something and the

dependency explosions

Hi ports people. It seems to me that there has been an explosion in ports dependencies recently. Things that used to need a few dependencies are now pulling in things one would never imagine. We just had to add the openjdk7 port to something and the number of dependencies is at 120 and rising