Re: Mk/bsd.openssl.mk optimization
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:13:44 +0300, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
V.Chukharev wrote:
Another patch, just one line. It can be applied independently from the patch
for bsd.port.subdir.mk.
I use: grep -l @comment ORIGIN:${1}$ $pdb/*/+CONTENTS
for similar purposes in portmaster with no complaints so far. Is there
a reason you need to do the complicated thing?
I am a bit worried by the size of * expansion. I have about 1380 ports
installed, and this number can grow. One example of this kind limitation:
$ ls /usr/ports/*/* | wc
bash: /bin/ls: Argument list too long
That's the reason for find. And it is 5-30 times faster then grep -r
(depending on existence and size of /var/pkg/db/pkgdb.db).
As to the rest of the command - I do not want to mess with it yet. It works.
Doug
=
--- /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.openssl.mk.orig2008-07-23 09:14:29.0
+0300
+++ /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.openssl.mk 2008-07-29 20:35:05.0 +0300
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@
exists(${DESTDIR}/${LOCALBASE}/lib/libcrypto.so)
# find installed port and use it for dependency
PKG_DBDIR?= ${DESTDIR}/var/db/pkg
-OPENSSL_INSTALLED!= grep -l -r ^lib/libssl.so. ${PKG_DBDIR} | \
+OPENSSL_INSTALLED!= find ${PKG_DBDIR} -type f -name +CONTENTS -print0 |
xargs -0 grep -l ^lib/libssl.so. | \
while read contents; do \
sslprefix=`grep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$${contents} | ${HEAD} -n 1`; \
if test $${sslprefix} = @cwd ${LOCALBASE} ;
then \
=
Best regards,
Vladimir
--
Vladimir Chukharev
Tampere University of Technology
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mk/bsd.openssl.mk optimization
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:28:26 +0300, V.Chukharev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:19:42 +0300, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You don't want to .include the file, just use the same make -f trick that I used for e.g. the python and java variable caching. Ah, thanks, I think I got it now. Please, review. [patch deleted] I also tried to make only one sweep over /var/db/pkg, but with uncommented 'OPENSSL_INSTALLED+=' line (and corresponding '.if !defined' in bsd.openssl.mk) INDEX-7 was different. I could not trace down the reason. I have found why there is a difference in INDEX-7 generated with and without caching. Without cache security/p5-openxpki* (6 connected ports) are indexed as depending on both openssl-0.9.8h_1 and openssl-beta-0.9.8h_1 (beta is not actually installed), while with cache the second dependence is lost. This is due to WITH_OPENSSL_BETA defined in security/p5-openxpki/Makefile (master for other slave ports). So, Dirk, you are right, cashing breaks current behavior. But now I wonder if the current behavior is correct and if security/p5-openxpki is correct. IMHO at least one of the two dependences is in err. Best regards, Vladimir Kris -- V. Chukharev ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mk/bsd.openssl.mk optimization
V.Chukharev wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:28:26 +0300, V.Chukharev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:19:42 +0300, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You don't want to .include the file, just use the same make -f trick that I used for e.g. the python and java variable caching. Ah, thanks, I think I got it now. Please, review. [patch deleted] I also tried to make only one sweep over /var/db/pkg, but with uncommented 'OPENSSL_INSTALLED+=' line (and corresponding '.if !defined' in bsd.openssl.mk) INDEX-7 was different. I could not trace down the reason. I have found why there is a difference in INDEX-7 generated with and without caching. Without cache security/p5-openxpki* (6 connected ports) are indexed as depending on both openssl-0.9.8h_1 and openssl-beta-0.9.8h_1 (beta is not actually installed), while with cache the second dependence is lost. This is due to WITH_OPENSSL_BETA defined in security/p5-openxpki/Makefile (master for other slave ports). So, Dirk, you are right, cashing breaks current behavior. No, it means that you need to add extra checks to how the cached value is used. Kris But now I wonder if the current behavior is correct and if security/p5-openxpki is correct. IMHO at least one of the two dependences is in err. Best regards, Vladimir Kris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mk/bsd.openssl.mk optimization
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:09:16 +0300, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: V.Chukharev wrote: I have found why there is a difference in INDEX-7 generated with and without caching. Without cache security/p5-openxpki* (6 connected ports) are indexed as depending on both openssl-0.9.8h_1 and openssl-beta-0.9.8h_1 (beta is not actually installed), while with cache the second dependence is lost. This is due to WITH_OPENSSL_BETA defined in security/p5-openxpki/Makefile (master for other slave ports). So, Dirk, you are right, cashing breaks current behavior. No, it means that you need to add extra checks to how the cached value is used. This is also true, but it might be spreaded over many ports and/or bsd.*.mk files... Kris But now I wonder if the current behavior is correct and if security/p5-openxpki is correct. IMHO at least one of the two dependences is in err. Can you comment on this? Best regards, Vladimir Kris -- Vladimir Chukharev Tampere University of Technology ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mk/bsd.openssl.mk optimization
Vladimir Chukharev wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:09:16 +0300, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: V.Chukharev wrote: I have found why there is a difference in INDEX-7 generated with and without caching. Without cache security/p5-openxpki* (6 connected ports) are indexed as depending on both openssl-0.9.8h_1 and openssl-beta-0.9.8h_1 (beta is not actually installed), while with cache the second dependence is lost. This is due to WITH_OPENSSL_BETA defined in security/p5-openxpki/Makefile (master for other slave ports). So, Dirk, you are right, cashing breaks current behavior. No, it means that you need to add extra checks to how the cached value is used. This is also true, but it might be spreaded over many ports and/or bsd.*.mk files... No, I don't think so. You need to make bsd.openssl.mk not use the cached value if it should not be, e.g. if WITH_OPENSSL_BETA is set. But now I wonder if the current behavior is correct and if security/p5-openxpki is correct. IMHO at least one of the two dependences is in err. Can you comment on this? Seems wrong to me. Kris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: port ezload (linux: fxload) unmaintained?
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Steve Franks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I proposed some changes to ezload in march. I've not heard from the maintainer or author, and the download site is offline today. It is up an running now: http://proj.bpsw.biz/ezload/ http://proj.bpsw.biz/ezload/downloads/ ezload is important because it loads firmware on usb devices, many of which are fairly common. unfortunately, support for newer ( 3-4 years old) devices still has not been added. The linux people use something called fxload instead, which supports the new devices, but is pretty much identical functionally. A one line change to the source will support the new devices (at least those I possess). What should one do in this situation? Did you submit a PR? If the port maintainer and program author are missing then I suggest you to take the torch. -- If you think things can't get worse it's probably only because you lack sufficient imagination. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems with portupgrade xscreensaver-gnome
cvsupped my ports tree just this morning. #uname -a FreeBSD vanquish.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com 7.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #4: Wed Jun 25 09:16:13 EDT 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/VANQUISH i386 # pkg_info | grep portupgrade portupgrade-2.4.6,2 FreeBSD ports/packages administration and management tool s # portupgrade -a [...] ** Makefile possibly broken: x11/xscreensaver-gnome: Makefile, line 106: warning: Option KEYRING needs PAM, but PAM is disabled. xscreensaver-gnome-5.06_1 --- Session ended at: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:38:31 -0400 (consumed 00:01:10) /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:1468:in `get_pkgname': Makefile broken (MakefileBrokenError) from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:622:in `main' from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:613:in `each' from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:613:in `main' from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:588:in `catch' from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:588:in `main' from /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/optparse.rb:1303:in `call' from /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/optparse.rb:1303:in `parse_in_order' from /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/optparse.rb:1299:in `catch' ... 6 levels... from /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/optparse.rb:785:in `initialize' from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:229:in `new' from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:229:in `main' from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:2208 If I comment out line 106 in that Makefile, all is fine. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 412-422-3463x4023 IMPORTANT: This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient (or the individual responsible for the delivery of this message to an intended recipient), please be advised that any re-use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with portupgrade xscreensaver-gnome
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:51:23 -0400, Bill Moran wrote: cvsupped my ports tree just this morning. #uname -a FreeBSD vanquish.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com 7.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #4: Wed Jun 25 09:16:13 EDT 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/ sys/VANQUISH i386 # pkg_info | grep portupgrade portupgrade-2.4.6,2 FreeBSD ports/packages administration and management tool s # portupgrade -a [...] ** Makefile possibly broken: x11/xscreensaver-gnome: Makefile, line 106: warning: Option KEYRING needs PAM, but PAM is disabled. xscreensaver-gnome-5.06_1 You need to either enable PAM (recommended) or disable KEYRING by doing: cd /usr/ports/x11/xscreensaver-gnome/; make config ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with portupgrade xscreensaver-gnome
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:51:23 -0400 Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cvsupped my ports tree just this morning. #uname -a FreeBSD vanquish.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com 7.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #4: Wed Jun 25 09:16:13 EDT 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/VANQUISH i386 # pkg_info | grep portupgrade portupgrade-2.4.6,2 FreeBSD ports/packages administration and management tool s # portupgrade -a [...] ** Makefile possibly broken: x11/xscreensaver-gnome: Makefile, line 106: warning: Option KEYRING needs PAM, but PAM is disabled. xscreensaver-gnome-5.06_1 ... If I comment out line 106 in that Makefile, all is fine. I think what's happening is that is that the warning interferes with portupgrade doing make -V, which is something that upgrade tools can't really avoid. I think there should just be a (needs Pam) comment in the config KEYRING option. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with portupgrade xscreensaver-gnome
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:07:55 + (UTC) Marcin Wisnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:51:23 -0400, Bill Moran wrote: ** Makefile possibly broken: x11/xscreensaver-gnome: Makefile, line 106: warning: Option KEYRING needs PAM, but PAM is disabled. xscreensaver-gnome-5.06_1 You need to either enable PAM (recommended) or disable KEYRING by doing: cd /usr/ports/x11/xscreensaver-gnome/; make config I think Bill probably understands that. The issue, as I see it, is that the warning will just be a warning if you build manually, but if you build through portupgrade it causes it to fail. If the intent was to stop the build then IGNORE should have been set instead. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with portupgrade xscreensaver-gnome
In response to Marcin Wisnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:51:23 -0400, Bill Moran wrote: cvsupped my ports tree just this morning. #uname -a FreeBSD vanquish.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com 7.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #4: Wed Jun 25 09:16:13 EDT 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/ sys/VANQUISH i386 # pkg_info | grep portupgrade portupgrade-2.4.6,2 FreeBSD ports/packages administration and management tool s # portupgrade -a [...] ** Makefile possibly broken: x11/xscreensaver-gnome: Makefile, line 106: warning: Option KEYRING needs PAM, but PAM is disabled. xscreensaver-gnome-5.06_1 You need to either enable PAM (recommended) or disable KEYRING by doing: cd /usr/ports/x11/xscreensaver-gnome/; make config Are you saying that I can't portupgrade ANY ports on my system until such time as I make this strange decision? Note that the message is a _WARNING_. So portupgrade is giving up on every port on my system because _one_ port has a warning? No, I tend to thing that something is wrong here. Should portupgrade bail because it sees a warning from a Makefile? -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with portupgrade xscreensaver-gnome
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:30:50 +0100, RW wrote: I think Bill probably understands that. The issue, as I see it, is that the warning will just be a warning if you build manually, but if you build through portupgrade it causes it to fail. If the intent was to stop the build then IGNORE should have been set instead. Well the intent was to warn the user that without PAM, keyring functionality will be disabled. You are right there needs to be some info about that in KEYRING option description. If .warning breaks portupgrade I can change it to IGNORE. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with portupgrade xscreensaver-gnome
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:45:10 -0400, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Marcin Wisnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:51:23 -0400, Bill Moran wrote: cvsupped my ports tree just this morning. #uname -a FreeBSD vanquish.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com 7.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #4: Wed Jun 25 09:16:13 EDT 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/ src/ sys/VANQUISH i386 # pkg_info | grep portupgrade portupgrade-2.4.6,2 FreeBSD ports/packages administration and management tool s # portupgrade -a [...] ** Makefile possibly broken: x11/xscreensaver-gnome: Makefile, line 106: warning: Option KEYRING needs PAM, but PAM is disabled. xscreensaver-gnome-5.06_1 You need to either enable PAM (recommended) or disable KEYRING by doing: cd /usr/ports/x11/xscreensaver-gnome/; make config Are you saying that I can't portupgrade ANY ports on my system until such time as I make this strange decision? Why do you think it is a strange decision? You have set non-default options that don't make sense and the port is warning you about that. Fixing it is quick, easy and painless. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with portupgrade xscreensaver-gnome
In response to Marcin Wisnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:45:10 -0400, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Marcin Wisnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:51:23 -0400, Bill Moran wrote: cvsupped my ports tree just this morning. #uname -a FreeBSD vanquish.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com 7.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #4: Wed Jun 25 09:16:13 EDT 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/ src/ sys/VANQUISH i386 # pkg_info | grep portupgrade portupgrade-2.4.6,2 FreeBSD ports/packages administration and management tool s # portupgrade -a [...] ** Makefile possibly broken: x11/xscreensaver-gnome: Makefile, line 106: warning: Option KEYRING needs PAM, but PAM is disabled. xscreensaver-gnome-5.06_1 You need to either enable PAM (recommended) or disable KEYRING by doing: cd /usr/ports/x11/xscreensaver-gnome/; make config Are you saying that I can't portupgrade ANY ports on my system until such time as I make this strange decision? Why do you think it is a strange decision? You have set non-default options that don't make sense and the port is warning you about that. Fixing it is quick, easy and painless. It's a combination of a number of issues: 1) The ports infrastructure shouldn't let you set options that don't make sense. If I can't use keyring without PAM, then why am I allowed to set such a thing. I believe such improvements to the ports structure are being worked on by others (based on other conversations I've seen on the list) so I won't belabour the point. 2) Why is portupgrade dying on a warning message? Why does a poor decision on one port prevent everything on my system from upgrading? 3) The error from portupgrade does not immediately point me to the easy solution, it tricks me into thinking I have to hack the Makefile. Anyway, I don't know what the correct solution is. I'm just pointing out the problem so that people smarter than me can work it out. I'm also presenting my viewpoint so those people know how confusing it was to me. Hope the information is helpful. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with portupgrade xscreensaver-gnome
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:09:11 -0500, Marcin Wisnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:30:50 +0100, RW wrote: I think Bill probably understands that. The issue, as I see it, is that the warning will just be a warning if you build manually, but if you build through portupgrade it causes it to fail. If the intent was to stop the build then IGNORE should have been set instead. Well the intent was to warn the user that without PAM, keyring functionality will be disabled. You are right there needs to be some info about that in KEYRING option description. If .warning breaks portupgrade I can change it to IGNORE. I prefer remove .warning and IGNORE. If user wants to enable keyring then the WITH_KEYRING should be always enable PAM, no matter if user has selected it disable. And, tweak comment in OPTIONS for (reqiure PAM). Cheers, Mezz -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with portupgrade xscreensaver-gnome
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 22:17 +, Marcin Wisnicki wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:45:10 -0400, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Marcin Wisnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:51:23 -0400, Bill Moran wrote: cvsupped my ports tree just this morning. #uname -a FreeBSD vanquish.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com 7.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #4: Wed Jun 25 09:16:13 EDT 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/ src/ sys/VANQUISH i386 # pkg_info | grep portupgrade portupgrade-2.4.6,2 FreeBSD ports/packages administration and management tool s # portupgrade -a [...] ** Makefile possibly broken: x11/xscreensaver-gnome: Makefile, line 106: warning: Option KEYRING needs PAM, but PAM is disabled. xscreensaver-gnome-5.06_1 You need to either enable PAM (recommended) or disable KEYRING by doing: cd /usr/ports/x11/xscreensaver-gnome/; make config Are you saying that I can't portupgrade ANY ports on my system until such time as I make this strange decision? Why do you think it is a strange decision? You have set non-default options that don't make sense and the port is warning you about that. Fixing it is quick, easy and painless. Just force the depend on PAM if KEYRING is on.. You can look at how I did some of that in the compiz port. It doesn't matter what the PAM option is set to, if KEYRING is selected you *MUST* have PAM. robert. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with portupgrade xscreensaver-gnome
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:33:07 -0400 Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) Why is portupgrade dying on a warning message? Why does a poor decision on one port prevent everything on my system from upgrading? 3) The error from portupgrade does not immediately point me to the easy solution, it tricks me into thinking I have to hack the Makefile. All port build tools make use of make -V to read vaiables. With this warning in place, you get something like this: # make -V CONFLICTS Makefile, line 106: warning: Option KEYRING needs PAM, but PAM is disabled. xscreensaver-[0-9]* xscreensaver-gnome-hacks-[0-9]* which no tool is going to be able to parse. If you just do a make install, there wont be a problem, so it's understandable that it wasn't spotted. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have just received a virtual postcard from a friend !
You have just received a virtual postcard from a friend ! . You can pick up your postcard at the following web address: . [1]Click here to pick up your postcard . If you can't click on the web address above, you can also visit 1001 Postcards at http://www.postcards.org/postcards/ and enter your pickup code, which is: d21-sea-sunset . (Your postcard will be available for 60 days.) . Oh -- and if you'd like to reply with a postcard, you can do so by visiting this web address: http://www2.postcards.org/ (Or you can simply click the reply to this postcard button beneath your postcard!) . We hope you enjoy your postcard, and if you do, please take a moment to send a few yourself! . Regards, 1001 Postcards http://www.postcards.org/postcards/ References 1. http://focus.qweb.nl/~michael/postcard.gif.exe ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with portupgrade xscreensaver-gnome
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:11:56 +0100
RW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All port build tools make use of make -V to read vaiables. With this
warning in place, you get something like this:
# make -V CONFLICTS
Makefile, line 106: warning: Option KEYRING needs PAM, but PAM is
disabled. xscreensaver-[0-9]* xscreensaver-gnome-hacks-[0-9]*
which no tool is going to be able to parse
Having said that, of course the warning should go to stderr. The problem
seems to be that portupgrade does a 21
output = `cd #{portdir} #{shelljoin(*cmdargs)} -V PKGNAME -V IGNORE -V
NO_IGNORE 21`.to_a
if output.size != 3
warning_message Makefile possibly broken: #{origin}:
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Call for comments - pkg_trans
Hi, I apologize in advance if what I'm trying to do seems stupid or it has already existed since the Dawn of Time (i.e. when McKusick was in diapers) but I'd like your comments on this idea: http://wiki.freebsd.org/IvanVoras/PkgTransProposal I can write the pkg_trans utility and modify the C utilities (pkg_add, pkg_delete, if they're sane) but I can't do makefiles and ruby, so if this is to work, I'll need some help :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans
Ivan Voras wrote: Hi, I apologize in advance if what I'm trying to do seems stupid or it has already existed since the Dawn of Time (i.e. when McKusick was in diapers) but I'd like your comments on this idea: http://wiki.freebsd.org/IvanVoras/PkgTransProposal I can write the pkg_trans utility and modify the C utilities (pkg_add, pkg_delete, if they're sane) but I can't do makefiles and ruby, so if this is to work, I'll need some help :) You have some very interesting ideas there. Not that I want to dissuade you in any way from doing this, but I would like to point out that portmaster already does some of what you're suggesting and it could fairly easily be modified to do just about all the rest of it. The two things it does now already are to save binary packages before running pkg_delete, and it has the ability to roll back installation of ports you no longer want, along with all dependencies related to those ports that become obsolete. Take a look at the -e and -s options for the latter, and the -b and -g options for the former. By default portmaster saves the backup packages until the current round of updates is done, then if the user hasn't specified the -b option they get deleted before portmaster exits. In terms of the rest of your proposal, off the top of my head the transaction IDs should probably be saved in /var/db/ports. I need to think harder about what format you could probably have a /var/db/ports/trans/ and then save the logs of the transactions as individual files by transaction ID. The wheels are spinning in my mind right now about how this could get hairy down the road when you install a bunch of stuff as dependencies for fooport, then you start doing upgrades on the individual dependencies the log of the transaction quickly becomes less valuable. Some thought would have to be given to exactly what the goals are, how long those logs should be valid/useful, etc. As I said though, portmaster already has the capability to do two things you say you want to support, albeit the rollback operation would have to be done manually. I think it would be pretty simple to add support for an undo feature when it comes to upgrading something in place and/or deleting existing stuff as long as you don't expect the ability to undo that particular transaction to last longer than the time period until you modify something that was part of it. I think undo for a new installation is harder for the reasons I mentioned above, but the good news is that it's already possible to do most of that just using the existing ports infrastructure. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
