Re: THANK YOU for flavors!
Op 07/12/2017 om 00:51 schreef Mel Pilgrim: > In the midst of all the negative noise, I thought I'd post and say > thank you for bring in this feature. I've been chomping at the bit to > try flavours out since I heard about them. I started flavouring my > company's internal Ports Tree extension the evening after it landed. > > Flavours are going to reduce 18 server role metaports to 3. > ___ > 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" Do you have a web page where flavours are explained nicely for non technical FreeBSD users so that they can also see the benefits of flavour. I think it is a little odd that a big change like this is not mentioned in any way on the front page of FreeBSD. I really believe things are better this way albeit i did not read and understand it in a whole. I also believe flavours are nice in a multi server envirement and on the desktop. The negative noice comes from people who USE FreeBSD on a single machine or maybe 2 and are now confronted with there old habbits not working anymore. Give those people a walkthrough how they can run poudriere. Best without out a server but just a oneliner they need to remeber for future updates. They do not want to spend too much time reading and trying to update there system. If FreeBSD has done that i think that was lot less negative noice on the channels. Secondly I want to thank you all for the great product FreeBSD is and it is a great product thanks to all the time people infest into FreeBSD. So thank you all. But i also hope FreeBSD learns from these big changes. If FreeBSD want a larger userbase, single machine users are there. And they do not want to spend an hour reading through a poudriere man page. They just want to type pgk upgrade, portmaster -d -a, or maybe poudriere update ports for all that matters. regards Johan ___ 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: THANK YOU for flavors! (fwd)
Le 07/12/2017 à 01:02, Dave Horsfall a écrit : > Errkk... This was meant for the list. > If you like, I can rename the FLAVORS and FLAVOR variable to BRTBERTZSRTZG and MBKSDFJGZEQ, so that they do not belong to any dictionnaries. -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)
On 06.12.17 23:23, Dave Horsfall wrote: On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, Jan Bramkamp wrote: Synth and poudriere are parallel build tools and as such are very taxing on the system. I suspect your system is unstable under such load, because of a configuration error or unreliable hardware. One such configuration error that bit me is tmpfs mounted without size limitation. Without size limits it can exhaust RAM + swap and crash the system. Limit the sum of all your tmpfs mounts to significantly less than RAM + swap. What happens then? Does the build process merely crash instead? I ask because my minimal system (all I can afford on my "income") has 512MB memory (all it will take) ad 1GB swap; building Ruby etc kills it, so I use packages in that case i.e. no customisation if I wanted it. In that case I wouldn't use tmpfs at all. One conceptual difference between the old portmaster/portupgrade tools and the newer tools like poudriere and synth is that the old tools try to minimize rebuilds by modifying the live system. This can break the system if the upgrade fails and will leave it inconsistent while the upgrade runs. Also some ports misbehave and interact with installed software they didn't list as dependency if it is installed. For these reasons the new tools create jail/chroot environments to build ports in a clean environment. Poudriere is designed around ZFS features (snapshots and cloning). Those can be emulated with UFS and overlay file systems, but Poudriere works best on a big ZFS based system with enough RAM to keep the build dirs in tmpfs (e.g. 8GB RAM per parallel builder and one builder per CPU core/thread). You can configure poudriere to use a single builder and UFS, but it will be a slow process. Synth reduces that overhead somewhat by reusing the host system. Its focus is more on keeping a single system up to date instead of compiling sets of ports to custom repos for other systems and the curses UI is a nice touch. Also synth can try to avoid building ports by prefetching packages from an upstream repo. To be honest few FreeBSD devs still care about self hosting FreeBSD on such tiny systems (0.5GB RAM, 1-2 cores). There are devs interested on optimizing FreeBSD for small embedded systems but you aren't expected to rebuild FreeBSD from source on a wireless access point or dedicated firewall appliance. If you have to compile and value your time get adequate hardware. Old 2U dual sockets servers may burn a lot of power but are quite cheap and you don't have to run a compile server 24/7. ___ 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: Bringing SUB-PACKAGES to ports
You guys seem to be attempting to do some cool things here and I actually appreciate flavors since those tools; python, ruby, go, pearl, php, etc are too complicated to maintained without some types of "Flavors" Android has been dealing with issues like this for a long time and they solved it with Gradle and product flavors: https://developer.android.com/studio/build/build-variants.html Instead of reinventing the wheel or knocking your head against brick walls, take a look at the product flavors for some inspiration? subheading Configure Product Flavors: https://developer.android.com/studio/build/build-variants.html On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Ben Woods wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Thank you very much for flavors. It has been long awaited, and will be a > great step forward for FreeBSD. > > Onwards and upwards: What is the status of subpackages? > > Speaking to bapt at BSDTW, it sounded like flavors was going to be the > difficult change, and subpackages would then be easy. > > Given that we are going through the transition to flavors now, and the > ports tools are getting updated to support it, would it be a good idea to > introduce subpackages now also? That way people who are getting familiar > with the changes required to the ports tools can use their new familiarity > whilst it is fresh to support both. > > For those that aren’t familiar: > - Flavors: build a port multiple times with different options/dependencies > to create multiple packages > - Subpackages: build a port once and chop the resulting files into multiple > subpackages > > https://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/FlavorsAndSubPackages > > Regards, > Ben > -- > > -- > From: Benjamin Woods > woods...@gmail.com > ___ > 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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)
El 7 dic. 2017 12:00, "Jan Bramkamp" escribió: On 06.12.17 23:23, Dave Horsfall wrote: > On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, Jan Bramkamp wrote: > > Synth and poudriere are parallel build tools and as such are very taxing >> on the system. I suspect your system is unstable under such load, because >> of a configuration error or unreliable hardware. One such configuration >> error that bit me is tmpfs mounted without size limitation. Without size >> limits it can exhaust RAM + swap and crash the system. Limit the sum of all >> your tmpfs mounts to significantly less than RAM + swap. >> > > What happens then? Does the build process merely crash instead? I ask > because my minimal system (all I can afford on my "income") has 512MB > memory (all it will take) ad 1GB swap; building Ruby etc kills it, so I use > packages in that case i.e. no customisation if I wanted it. > In that case I wouldn't use tmpfs at all. One conceptual difference between the old portmaster/portupgrade tools and the newer tools like poudriere and synth is that the old tools try to minimize rebuilds by modifying the live system. This can break the system if the upgrade fails and will leave it inconsistent while the upgrade runs. Also some ports misbehave and interact with installed software they didn't list as dependency if it is installed. For these reasons the new tools create jail/chroot environments to build ports in a clean environment. Poudriere is designed around ZFS features (snapshots and cloning). Those can be emulated with UFS and overlay file systems, but Poudriere works best on a big ZFS based system with enough RAM to keep the build dirs in tmpfs (e.g. 8GB RAM per parallel builder and one builder per CPU core/thread). You can configure poudriere to use a single builder and UFS, but it will be a slow process. Synth reduces that overhead somewhat by reusing the host system. Its focus is more on keeping a single system up to date instead of compiling sets of ports to custom repos for other systems and the curses UI is a nice touch. Also synth can try to avoid building ports by prefetching packages from an upstream repo. Can poudriere prefetch packages too? To be honest few FreeBSD devs still care about self hosting FreeBSD on such tiny systems (0.5GB RAM, 1-2 cores). There are devs interested on optimizing FreeBSD for small embedded systems but you aren't expected to rebuild FreeBSD from source on a wireless access point or dedicated firewall appliance. If you have to compile and value your time get adequate hardware. Old 2U dual sockets servers may burn a lot of power but are quite cheap and you don't have to run a compile server 24/7. ___ 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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)
Fernando Apesteguía writes: > Can poudriere prefetch packages too? No until https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/issues/319 is fixed. ___ 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: THANK YOU for flavors!
On 12/07/17 04:30, Johan Hendriks wrote: Op 07/12/2017 om 00:51 schreef Mel Pilgrim: In the midst of all the negative noise, I thought I'd post and say thank you for bring in this feature. I've been chomping at the bit to try flavours out since I heard about them. I started flavouring my company's internal Ports Tree extension the evening after it landed. Flavours are going to reduce 18 server role metaports to 3. ___ 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" Do you have a web page where flavours are explained nicely for non technical FreeBSD users so that they can also see the benefits of flavour. I think it is a little odd that a big change like this is not mentioned in any way on the front page of FreeBSD. I really believe things are better this way albeit i did not read and understand it in a whole. I also believe flavours are nice in a multi server envirement and on the desktop. The negative noice comes from people who USE FreeBSD on a single machine or maybe 2 and are now confronted with there old habbits not working anymore. Give those people a walkthrough how they can run poudriere. Best without out a server but just a oneliner they need to remeber for future updates. They do not want to spend too much time reading and trying to update there system. If FreeBSD has done that i think that was lot less negative noice on the channels. Secondly I want to thank you all for the great product FreeBSD is and it is a great product thanks to all the time people infest into FreeBSD. So thank you all. But i also hope FreeBSD learns from these big changes. If FreeBSD want a larger userbase, single machine users are there. And they do not want to spend an hour reading through a poudriere man page. They just want to type pgk upgrade, portmaster -d -a, or maybe poudriere update ports for all that matters. users also don't want to wake up to the fact that what worked a few days ago not is working ie fetch/update port repo run synth and then get a " What the fuck has just happened now" only to be put down by the so called folks in charge here for even asking. ___ 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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)
On 12/07/2017 12:36 AM, Mel Pilgrim wrote: > As for those complaining about, it's a remarkably small number of very > loud people, Let's not jump to the conclusion that since only the vocal minority who complains, then they are the only ones affected. Plenty of us are just silently waiting for a portmaster fix, seeing as complaints have no visible effect. ___ 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: Bringing SUB-PACKAGES to ports
> On 7 Dec, 2017, at 4:16, blubee blubeeme wrote: > > You guys seem to be attempting to do some cool things here and I actually > appreciate flavors since those tools; python, ruby, go, pearl, php, etc are > too complicated to maintained without some types of "Flavors" > > Android has been dealing with issues like this for a long time and they > solved it with Gradle and product flavors: > https://developer.android.com/studio/build/build-variants.html > > Instead of reinventing the wheel or knocking your head against brick walls, > take a look at the product flavors for some inspiration? > > subheading Configure Product Flavors: > https://developer.android.com/studio/build/build-variants.html We already have flavors. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Ben Woods wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Thank you very much for flavors. It has been long awaited, and will be a >> great step forward for FreeBSD. >> >> Onwards and upwards: What is the status of subpackages? >> >> Speaking to bapt at BSDTW, it sounded like flavors was going to be the >> difficult change, and subpackages would then be easy. >> >> Given that we are going through the transition to flavors now, and the >> ports tools are getting updated to support it, would it be a good idea to >> introduce subpackages now also? That way people who are getting familiar >> with the changes required to the ports tools can use their new familiarity >> whilst it is fresh to support both. >> >> For those that aren’t familiar: >> - Flavors: build a port multiple times with different options/dependencies >> to create multiple packages >> - Subpackages: build a port once and chop the resulting files into multiple >> subpackages >> >> https://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/FlavorsAndSubPackages >> >> Regards, >> Ben >> -- >> >> -- >> From: Benjamin Woods >> woods...@gmail.com >> ___ >> 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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)
El día jueves, diciembre 07, 2017 a las 01:40:28p. m. +0100, Jan Beich escribió: > Fernando Apesteguía writes: > > > Can poudriere prefetch packages too? > > No until https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/issues/319 is fixed. I have a question which points in some similar direction: I have built my ports with poudriere, which results in some 2000 packages. I copy over this repos to my other laptops and netbooks for installation. In addition I have on the target laptops the exact same SVN revision of /usr/ports as in the poudriere jail where the packages have been built. All fine until here. Sometimes I want to add some port which was not built with poudriere directly compiling it on the target laptops and now, ofc, this compilation is missing some other packages the concrete port is depending on and it tries to build them too, even if they are already as built package in my local repo. If I'm not lazy, I watch the building and when it goes to look in Internet for some additional source to build, I interrupt the 'make install' and look if I could install it from the local repo. Boring. Can I direct the make process to look on the flight into the local repo to satisfy the needs of the compilation of the port? matthias -- Matthias Apitz, ✉ g...@unixarea.de, ⌂ http://www.unixarea.de/ 📱 +49-176-38902045 Public GnuPG key: http://www.unixarea.de/key.pub signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bringing SUB-PACKAGES to ports
Does flavors allow build/test multiple packages based on multiple python versions and multiple architectures and different options? Flavors is a good step in the right direction but there are people with a lot more experience with way more complicated build systems than FreeBSD. I provided some links for you guys to take a look at. "We already have flavors" is a very arrogant answer that totally misses the point of my email. Best On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > On 7 Dec, 2017, at 4:16, blubee blubeeme wrote: > > > > You guys seem to be attempting to do some cool things here and I actually > > appreciate flavors since those tools; python, ruby, go, pearl, php, etc > are > > too complicated to maintained without some types of "Flavors" > > > > Android has been dealing with issues like this for a long time and they > > solved it with Gradle and product flavors: > > https://developer.android.com/studio/build/build-variants.html > > > > Instead of reinventing the wheel or knocking your head against brick > walls, > > take a look at the product flavors for some inspiration? > > > > subheading Configure Product Flavors: > > https://developer.android.com/studio/build/build-variants.html > > We already have flavors. > > # Adam > > > -- > Adam Weinberger > ad...@adamw.org > https://www.adamw.org > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Ben Woods wrote: > > > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> Thank you very much for flavors. It has been long awaited, and will be a > >> great step forward for FreeBSD. > >> > >> Onwards and upwards: What is the status of subpackages? > >> > >> Speaking to bapt at BSDTW, it sounded like flavors was going to be the > >> difficult change, and subpackages would then be easy. > >> > >> Given that we are going through the transition to flavors now, and the > >> ports tools are getting updated to support it, would it be a good idea > to > >> introduce subpackages now also? That way people who are getting familiar > >> with the changes required to the ports tools can use their new > familiarity > >> whilst it is fresh to support both. > >> > >> For those that aren’t familiar: > >> - Flavors: build a port multiple times with different > options/dependencies > >> to create multiple packages > >> - Subpackages: build a port once and chop the resulting files into > multiple > >> subpackages > >> > >> https://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/FlavorsAndSubPackages > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ben > >> -- > >> > >> -- > >> From: Benjamin Woods > >> woods...@gmail.com > >> ___ > >> 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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:14:44PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: > Sometimes I want to add some port which was not built with poudriere > directly compiling it on the target laptops and now, ofc, this > compilation is missing some other packages the concrete port is > depending on and it tries to build them too, even if they are already as > built package in my local repo. If I'm not lazy, I watch the building > and when it goes to look in Internet for some additional source to > build, I interrupt the 'make install' and look if I could install it from > the local repo. Boring. Can I direct the make process to look on the > flight into the local repo to satisfy the needs of the compilation of > the port? You can in the port's directory you can run "pkg install -A `make missing`. That should install missing dependencies as packages. Sometimes there are no packages for a dependecy then you can skip those: "pkg install -A `make missing | grep -v -e fooport -e barport` ___ 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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)
From my experience poudriere doesn't support that workflow. Either build the port and create a package of it, then install that on your target machine or build everything in your laptop. Poudriere wants to be the build bot. On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Matthias Apitz wrote: > El día jueves, diciembre 07, 2017 a las 01:40:28p. m. +0100, Jan Beich > escribió: > > > Fernando Apesteguía writes: > > > > > Can poudriere prefetch packages too? > > > > No until https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/issues/319 is fixed. > > I have a question which points in some similar direction: I have built > my ports with poudriere, which results in some 2000 packages. I copy over > this repos to my other laptops and netbooks for installation. In > addition I have on the target laptops the exact same SVN revision of > /usr/ports as in the poudriere jail where the packages have been built. > All fine until here. > > Sometimes I want to add some port which was not built with poudriere > directly compiling it on the target laptops and now, ofc, this > compilation is missing some other packages the concrete port is > depending on and it tries to build them too, even if they are already as > built package in my local repo. If I'm not lazy, I watch the building > and when it goes to look in Internet for some additional source to > build, I interrupt the 'make install' and look if I could install it from > the local repo. Boring. Can I direct the make process to look on the > flight into the local repo to satisfy the needs of the compilation of > the port? > > matthias > -- > Matthias Apitz, ✉ g...@unixarea.de, ⌂ http://www.unixarea.de/ 📱 > +49-176-38902045 > Public GnuPG key: http://www.unixarea.de/key.pub > ___ 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: THANK YOU for flavors!
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 07:51:15AM -0500, Baho Utot wrote: > > > On 12/07/17 04:30, Johan Hendriks wrote: > > Op 07/12/2017 om 00:51 schreef Mel Pilgrim: > >> In the midst of all the negative noise, I thought I'd post and say > >> thank you for bring in this feature. I've been chomping at the bit to > >> try flavours out since I heard about them. I started flavouring my > >> company's internal Ports Tree extension the evening after it landed. > >> > >> Flavours are going to reduce 18 server role metaports to 3. > >> ___ > >> 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" > > Do you have a web page where flavours are explained nicely for non > > technical FreeBSD users so that they can also see the benefits of > > flavour. I think it is a little odd that a big change like this is not > > mentioned in any way on the front page of FreeBSD. > > I really believe things are better this way albeit i did not read and > > understand it in a whole. I also believe flavours are nice in a multi > > server envirement and on the desktop. > > The negative noice comes from people who USE FreeBSD on a single machine > > or maybe 2 and are now confronted with there old habbits not working > > anymore. > > Give those people a walkthrough how they can run poudriere. Best without > > out a server but just a oneliner they need to remeber for future > > updates. They do not want to spend too much time reading and trying to > > update there system. > > If FreeBSD has done that i think that was lot less negative noice on the > > channels. > > > > Secondly I want to thank you all for the great product FreeBSD is and it > > is a great product thanks to all the time people infest into FreeBSD. > > So thank you all. But i also hope FreeBSD learns from these big changes. > > If FreeBSD want a larger userbase, single machine users are there. And > > they do not want to spend an hour reading through a poudriere man page. > > They just want to type pgk upgrade, portmaster -d -a, or maybe poudriere > > update ports for all that matters. > > > > users also don't want to wake up to the fact that what worked a few days > ago not is working ie fetch/update port repo run synth and then get a " > What the fuck has just happened now" only to be put down by the so > called folks in charge here for even asking. I think we all understood your point. Please come back if you have something new to say. Thank you! -- Lars ___ 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: Bringing SUB-PACKAGES to ports
> On 7 Dec, 2017, at 6:28, blubee blubeeme wrote: > > Does flavors allow build/test multiple packages based on multiple python > versions and multiple architectures and different options? Yes. Poudriere handles this directly as well. > Flavors is a good step in the right direction but there are people with a lot > more experience with way more complicated build systems than FreeBSD. > > I provided some links for you guys to take a look at. "We already have > flavors" is a very arrogant answer that totally misses the point of my email. The right time to design flavors was before flavors were introduced. Is there something in Android Studio's build variants that FreeBSD is missing? blubee, we've talked about this multiple times: Please STOP top-posting. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > On 7 Dec, 2017, at 4:16, blubee blubeeme wrote: > > > > You guys seem to be attempting to do some cool things here and I actually > > appreciate flavors since those tools; python, ruby, go, pearl, php, etc are > > too complicated to maintained without some types of "Flavors" > > > > Android has been dealing with issues like this for a long time and they > > solved it with Gradle and product flavors: > > https://developer.android.com/studio/build/build-variants.html > > > > Instead of reinventing the wheel or knocking your head against brick walls, > > take a look at the product flavors for some inspiration? > > > > subheading Configure Product Flavors: > > https://developer.android.com/studio/build/build-variants.html > > We already have flavors. > > # Adam > > > -- > Adam Weinberger > ad...@adamw.org > https://www.adamw.org > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Ben Woods wrote: > > > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> Thank you very much for flavors. It has been long awaited, and will be a > >> great step forward for FreeBSD. > >> > >> Onwards and upwards: What is the status of subpackages? > >> > >> Speaking to bapt at BSDTW, it sounded like flavors was going to be the > >> difficult change, and subpackages would then be easy. > >> > >> Given that we are going through the transition to flavors now, and the > >> ports tools are getting updated to support it, would it be a good idea to > >> introduce subpackages now also? That way people who are getting familiar > >> with the changes required to the ports tools can use their new familiarity > >> whilst it is fresh to support both. > >> > >> For those that aren’t familiar: > >> - Flavors: build a port multiple times with different options/dependencies > >> to create multiple packages > >> - Subpackages: build a port once and chop the resulting files into multiple > >> subpackages > >> > >> https://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/FlavorsAndSubPackages > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ben > >> -- > >> > >> -- > >> From: Benjamin Woods > >> woods...@gmail.com > >> ___ > >> 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: THANK YOU for flavors!
> On 7 Dec, 2017, at 6:36, Lars Engels wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 07:51:15AM -0500, Baho Utot wrote: >> >> >> On 12/07/17 04:30, Johan Hendriks wrote: >>> Op 07/12/2017 om 00:51 schreef Mel Pilgrim: In the midst of all the negative noise, I thought I'd post and say thank you for bring in this feature. I've been chomping at the bit to try flavours out since I heard about them. I started flavouring my company's internal Ports Tree extension the evening after it landed. Flavours are going to reduce 18 server role metaports to 3. ___ 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" >>> Do you have a web page where flavours are explained nicely for non >>> technical FreeBSD users so that they can also see the benefits of >>> flavour. I think it is a little odd that a big change like this is not >>> mentioned in any way on the front page of FreeBSD. >>> I really believe things are better this way albeit i did not read and >>> understand it in a whole. I also believe flavours are nice in a multi >>> server envirement and on the desktop. >>> The negative noice comes from people who USE FreeBSD on a single machine >>> or maybe 2 and are now confronted with there old habbits not working >>> anymore. >>> Give those people a walkthrough how they can run poudriere. Best without >>> out a server but just a oneliner they need to remeber for future >>> updates. They do not want to spend too much time reading and trying to >>> update there system. >>> If FreeBSD has done that i think that was lot less negative noice on the >>> channels. >>> >>> Secondly I want to thank you all for the great product FreeBSD is and it >>> is a great product thanks to all the time people infest into FreeBSD. >>> So thank you all. But i also hope FreeBSD learns from these big changes. >>> If FreeBSD want a larger userbase, single machine users are there. And >>> they do not want to spend an hour reading through a poudriere man page. >>> They just want to type pgk upgrade, portmaster -d -a, or maybe poudriere >>> update ports for all that matters. >>> >> >> users also don't want to wake up to the fact that what worked a few days >> ago not is working ie fetch/update port repo run synth and then get a " >> What the fuck has just happened now" only to be put down by the so >> called folks in charge here for even asking. > > I think we all understood your point. Please come back if you have > something new to say. Baho, I didn't get your original message because you're routed to /dev/null on my machine. Your tone is increasingly hostile, and you need to rein in your vitriol. You've told this list multiple times that you're leaving. Either leave now, or change your tone on this list. If you want to complain about how flavors ruined your life, fine, but insulting the people who created it is inappropriate and not tolerated on this list. You're welcome to send me as much hate mail as you'd like, but keep it off the list. This list is for helping users create or use ports. It is not your personal soapbox, and if you can't control your emotions, then it's time for you to walk away. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.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: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster
Quoting Stefan Esser (from Tue, 5 Dec 2017 08:35:55 +0100): Am 05.12.17 um 00:43 schrieb Tatsuki Makino: By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor? I am using portmaster. I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build I wonder if it would make sense to import portmaster into FreeBSD SVN. It is a tool targeting the FreeBSD ports tree and pkg infrastructure and it looks like it is important for a not so small userbase. While there are several committers within the contributors (I'm not sure if this means they have write access to the repo or if it just means that a pull request was accepted), there is more or less no progress since 2013 (yes, a few commits there, but also useful pull requests for e.g. local package installation with pkgng support which are not integrated at all). If we look at how widespread the use of portmaster still is (and I'm sure there are more people which use it and are more cool-headed and just wait if there are some fixes coming for it in the near future like it was the case for the pkgng switch), it would make sense to have the (as it looks) abandoned-on-github-portmaster-version in a FreeBSD controlled area. Alternatively, how would a FreeBSD committer like Stefan or Torsten or me or whoever gain write access to https://github.com/freebsd/portmaster/ so get some progress in the official portmaster location and create a new release (sorry my ignorance for github and how it works, I'm used to CVS/SVN workflows)? Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net alexan...@leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF http://www.FreeBSD.orgnetch...@freebsd.org : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF pgpLtiCSMk2Ql.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur
Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:49:45PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > Quoting Stefan Esser (from Tue, 5 Dec 2017 08:35:55 +0100): > > > Am 05.12.17 um 00:43 schrieb Tatsuki Makino: > > > By the way, where is the clever way to update to flavor? > > > I am using portmaster. > > > > I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build > > I wonder if it would make sense to import portmaster into > FreeBSD SVN. It is a tool targeting the FreeBSD ports tree and > pkg infrastructure and it looks like it is important for a not > so small userbase. > > While there are several committers within the contributors (I'm > not sure if this means they have write access to the repo or if > it just means that a pull request was accepted), there is more > or less no progress since 2013 (yes, a few commits there, but > also useful pull requests for e.g. local package installation > with pkgng support which are not integrated at all). If we look > at how widespread the use of portmaster still is (and I'm sure > there are more people which use it and are more cool-headed and > just wait if there are some fixes coming for it in the near > future like it was the case for the pkgng switch), it would > make sense to have the (as it looks) > abandoned-on-github-portmaster-version in a FreeBSD controlled > area. > > Alternatively, how would a FreeBSD committer like Stefan or > Torsten or me or whoever gain write access to > https://github.com/freebsd/portmaster/ so get some progress in > the official portmaster location and create a new release > (sorry my ignorance for github and how it works, I'm used to > CVS/SVN workflows)? They just need to ask git admins to get access, I have already asked Stefan (not reply yet) They can also ask me directly if they want given I am part of the git admins Bapt signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: THANK YOU for flavors!
On 07.12.17 13:51, Baho Utot wrote: users also don't want to wake up to the fact that what worked a few days ago not is working ie fetch/update port repo run synth and then get a " What the fuck has just happened now" only to be put down by the so called folks in charge here for even asking. Shut the fuck up until you have something more than your whining to offer. *PLONK* ___ 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: THANK YOU for flavors!
On 12/07/17 08:36, Lars Engels wrote: On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 07:51:15AM -0500, Baho Utot wrote: On 12/07/17 04:30, Johan Hendriks wrote: Op 07/12/2017 om 00:51 schreef Mel Pilgrim: In the midst of all the negative noise, I thought I'd post and say thank you for bring in this feature. I've been chomping at the bit to try flavours out since I heard about them. I started flavouring my company's internal Ports Tree extension the evening after it landed. Flavours are going to reduce 18 server role metaports to 3. ___ 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" Do you have a web page where flavours are explained nicely for non technical FreeBSD users so that they can also see the benefits of flavour. I think it is a little odd that a big change like this is not mentioned in any way on the front page of FreeBSD. I really believe things are better this way albeit i did not read and understand it in a whole. I also believe flavours are nice in a multi server envirement and on the desktop. The negative noice comes from people who USE FreeBSD on a single machine or maybe 2 and are now confronted with there old habbits not working anymore. Give those people a walkthrough how they can run poudriere. Best without out a server but just a oneliner they need to remeber for future updates. They do not want to spend too much time reading and trying to update there system. If FreeBSD has done that i think that was lot less negative noice on the channels. Secondly I want to thank you all for the great product FreeBSD is and it is a great product thanks to all the time people infest into FreeBSD. So thank you all. But i also hope FreeBSD learns from these big changes. If FreeBSD want a larger userbase, single machine users are there. And they do not want to spend an hour reading through a poudriere man page. They just want to type pgk upgrade, portmaster -d -a, or maybe poudriere update ports for all that matters. users also don't want to wake up to the fact that what worked a few days ago not is working ie fetch/update port repo run synth and then get a " What the fuck has just happened now" only to be put down by the so called folks in charge here for even asking. I think we all understood your point. Please come back if you have something new to say. Thank you! I think you have heard what I have been saying for 3 to 4 years You certainly have not understood it as the same "mistakes" keep occurring. There are ways to "roll out" these kind of changes gracefully, you folks just seem to bring them out and the consequences BE DAMNED, The Bull in the china cabinet comes to mind. ___ 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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:33:08 +0100 "Lars Engels" said On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:14:44PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: > Sometimes I want to add some port which was not built with poudriere > directly compiling it on the target laptops and now, ofc, this > compilation is missing some other packages the concrete port is > depending on and it tries to build them too, even if they are already as > built package in my local repo. If I'm not lazy, I watch the building > and when it goes to look in Internet for some additional source to > build, I interrupt the 'make install' and look if I could install it from > the local repo. Boring. Can I direct the make process to look on the > flight into the local repo to satisfy the needs of the compilation of > the port? You can in the port's directory you can run "pkg install -A `make missing`. That should install missing dependencies as packages. Sometimes there are no packages for a dependecy then you can skip those: "pkg install -A `make missing | grep -v -e fooport -e barport` and in case you haven't already done so; you'll also want to adjust pkg.conf(5) to point to your local repo. --Chris ___ 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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)
El día jueves, diciembre 07, 2017 a las 09:01:01a. m. -0800, Chris H escribió: > > You can in the port's directory you can run "pkg install -A `make missing`. > > That should install missing dependencies as packages. Sometimes there > > are no packages for a dependecy then you can skip those: > > "pkg install -A `make missing | grep -v -e fooport -e barport` > > and in case you haven't already done so; > you'll also want to adjust pkg.conf(5) to point to your local repo. Ofc, I have done so for my local repo. Thanks for the trick, Lars. matthias -- Matthias Apitz, ✉ g...@unixarea.de, ⌂ http://www.unixarea.de/ 📱 +49-176-38902045 Public GnuPG key: http://www.unixarea.de/key.pub signature.asc Description: PGP signature
FreeBSD Port: php72-7.2.0 : trouble with lang/php72 & libargon2
I am having some trouble with the libargon2 dependency for lang/php72
Summary, for full details see below:
1. In the worst case (when built on remote poudriere) php72 crashes when
using the PASSWORD_ARGON2I algo for password_hash. pkg check
--dependencies reports problem.
2. On a separate machine. When building from local ports,
password_hash(...PASSWORD_ARGON2I) works but pkg check --dependencies
still reports problem.
3. On yet another machine, installing "latest" packages from central
FreeBSD repo, it behaves exactly like the install from ports.
All machined are fully upgraded FBSD 11.1
1. BAD: from poudriere
--
# on poudiere machine
# poudriere ports -u
# poudriere bulk -j111amd64 -C lang/php72 security/libargon2
# then on machine which is using the poudriere repo
# pkg upgrade -f php72 libargon2
# php -r 'echo password_hash("password", PASSWORD_ARGON2I). "\n";'
Illegal instruction (core dumped)
# php -r 'echo password_hash("password", PASSWORD_DEFAULT). "\n";'
$2y$10$G7sfHPrxSMdYhRj.mt4Xgur3B8nX7Im.TOwVjFjM/somdMLHaAev2
# pkg check --dependencies
Checking all packages: 100%
php72 is missing a required shared library: libargon2.so
2. BETTER, BUT STILL NOT GOOD: from ports
-
# # on a third clean machine, build from local ports
# cd /usr/ports/lang/php72
# make clean install
# php -r 'echo password_hash("password", PASSWORD_ARGON2I). "\n";'
$argon2i$v=19$m=1024,t=2,p=2$aDdVOWhvWEFPS3ZEcTVJWQ$VFelNLga/k/d+j74AeA6vPweN7KvA9KGhVVL9dmnfVA
[root@zeta php72]# pkg check --dependencies
Checking all packages: 100%
php72 is missing a required shared library: libargon2.so
3. SAME AS ABOVE: from FreeBSD repo packages
# pkg install php72
New packages to be INSTALLED:
php72: 7.2.0
libargon2: 20161029
Number of packages to be installed: 2
# php -r 'echo password_hash("password", PASSWORD_ARGON2I). "\n";'
$argon2i$v=19$m=1024,t=2,p=2$dlh0aS9zcFpuV1FqbWpZbg$BbrqQnU/OcjDBhWz5vDPNZkAQLDlMY6XxPFScweJpj0
[root@zeta libargon2]# pkg check --dependencies
Checking all packages: 100%
php72 is missing a required shared library: libargon2.so
Can anyone shed any light?
Thanks
--
Oliver Schönrock
email: oli...@schonrocks.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: THANK YOU for flavors!
On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 07:51 -0500, Baho Utot wrote: > > On 12/07/17 04:30, Johan Hendriks wrote: > > Op 07/12/2017 om 00:51 schreef Mel Pilgrim: > > > In the midst of all the negative noise, I thought I'd post and > > > say > > > thank you for bring in this feature. I've been chomping at the > > > bit to > > > try flavours out since I heard about them. I started flavouring > > > my > > > company's internal Ports Tree extension the evening after it > > > landed. > > > > > > Flavours are going to reduce 18 server role metaports to 3. > > > ___ > > > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > > > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freeb > > > sd.org" > > > > Do you have a web page where flavours are explained nicely for non > > technical FreeBSD users so that they can also see the benefits of > > flavour. I think it is a little odd that a big change like this is > > not > > mentioned in any way on the front page of FreeBSD. > > I really believe things are better this way albeit i did not read > > and > > understand it in a whole. I also believe flavours are nice in a > > multi > > server envirement and on the desktop. > > The negative noice comes from people who USE FreeBSD on a single > > machine > > or maybe 2 and are now confronted with there old habbits not > > working > > anymore. > > Give those people a walkthrough how they can run poudriere. Best > > without > > out a server but just a oneliner they need to remeber for future > > updates. They do not want to spend too much time reading and trying > > to > > update there system. > > If FreeBSD has done that i think that was lot less negative noice > > on the > > channels. > > > > Secondly I want to thank you all for the great product FreeBSD is > > and it > > is a great product thanks to all the time people infest into > > FreeBSD. > > So thank you all. But i also hope FreeBSD learns from these big > > changes. > > If FreeBSD want a larger userbase, single machine users are there. > > And > > they do not want to spend an hour reading through a poudriere man > > page. > > They just want to type pgk upgrade, portmaster -d -a, or maybe > > poudriere > > update ports for all that matters. > > > > users also don't want to wake up to the fact that what worked a few > days > ago not is working ie fetch/update port repo run synth and then get a > " > What the fuck has just happened now" only to be put down by the so > called folks in charge here for even asking. > > I understand your frustration but I am happy with Synth and Mr. Marino made patches extremely fast. I updated everything with success. ___ 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: THANK YOU for flavors!
On 12/7/2017 5:43 PM, Stari Karp wrote: On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 07:51 -0500, Baho Utot wrote: On 12/07/17 04:30, Johan Hendriks wrote: Op 07/12/2017 om 00:51 schreef Mel Pilgrim: In the midst of all the negative noise, I thought I'd post and say thank you for bring in this feature. I've been chomping at the bit to try flavours out since I heard about them. I started flavouring my company's internal Ports Tree extension the evening after it landed. Flavours are going to reduce 18 server role metaports to 3. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freeb sd.org" Do you have a web page where flavours are explained nicely for non technical FreeBSD users so that they can also see the benefits of flavour. I think it is a little odd that a big change like this is not mentioned in any way on the front page of FreeBSD. I really believe things are better this way albeit i did not read and understand it in a whole. I also believe flavours are nice in a multi server envirement and on the desktop. The negative noice comes from people who USE FreeBSD on a single machine or maybe 2 and are now confronted with there old habbits not working anymore. Give those people a walkthrough how they can run poudriere. Best without out a server but just a oneliner they need to remeber for future updates. They do not want to spend too much time reading and trying to update there system. If FreeBSD has done that i think that was lot less negative noice on the channels. Secondly I want to thank you all for the great product FreeBSD is and it is a great product thanks to all the time people infest into FreeBSD. So thank you all. But i also hope FreeBSD learns from these big changes. If FreeBSD want a larger userbase, single machine users are there. And they do not want to spend an hour reading through a poudriere man page. They just want to type pgk upgrade, portmaster -d -a, or maybe poudriere update ports for all that matters. users also don't want to wake up to the fact that what worked a few days ago not is working ie fetch/update port repo run synth and then get a " What the fuck has just happened now" only to be put down by the so called folks in charge here for even asking. I understand your frustration but I am happy with Synth and Mr. Marino made patches extremely fast. I updated everything with success. John new "port system" looks really good it may well be the wave of the future, if it gets a little support. check out https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports and http://www.ravenports.com Of course it will need to expand to other platforms, and expand the number of packages in the ravenports system, but it looks like a good alternative to ports. Too bad I am moving from FreeBSD back to Linux or I would have a go with it. I have been working on something that is similar to ravenports for all my in house servers and desktops. I should have something working by the end of the year. I already have a "system builder" completed that builds and installs a scratch built linux base system. I will have some "meta packages" that will allow one to install desktop machines by installing one base package and one desktop package for a working base/default desktop machine. That is how I setup my freebsd boxs (soon to be linux boxs), desktop-lumina, desktop-kde and desktop-gnome. I also have meta packages for server-mail, server-dns, server-file, server-web and server-dhcp. Installing is simple as booting to the USB drive, partitioning and installing ext4 filesystem(s) and then install base and desktop-kde. edit a few config files and it's done. Same for servers. If I want a dns and dhcp server all I need to do is to install base, server-dns and server-dhcp and edit a few config files and I am good to go. ___ 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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)
On 7 Dec, Jan Bramkamp wrote: > On 06.12.17 23:23, Dave Horsfall wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, Jan Bramkamp wrote: >> >>> Synth and poudriere are parallel build tools and as such are very >>> taxing on the system. I suspect your system is unstable under such >>> load, because of a configuration error or unreliable hardware. One >>> such configuration error that bit me is tmpfs mounted without size >>> limitation. Without size limits it can exhaust RAM + swap and crash >>> the system. Limit the sum of all your tmpfs mounts to significantly >>> less than RAM + swap. >> >> What happens then? Does the build process merely crash instead? I ask >> because my minimal system (all I can afford on my "income") has 512MB >> memory (all it will take) ad 1GB swap; building Ruby etc kills it, so I >> use packages in that case i.e. no customisation if I wanted it. > > In that case I wouldn't use tmpfs at all. One conceptual difference > between the old portmaster/portupgrade tools and the newer tools like > poudriere and synth is that the old tools try to minimize rebuilds by > modifying the live system. This can break the system if the upgrade > fails and will leave it inconsistent while the upgrade runs. Also some > ports misbehave and interact with installed software they didn't list as > dependency if it is installed. For these reasons the new tools create > jail/chroot environments to build ports in a clean environment. > Poudriere is designed around ZFS features (snapshots and cloning). Those > can be emulated with UFS and overlay file systems, but Poudriere works > best on a big ZFS based system with enough RAM to keep the build dirs in > tmpfs (e.g. 8GB RAM per parallel builder and one builder per CPU > core/thread). You can configure poudriere to use a single builder and > UFS, but it will be a slow process. I get adequate performance with about half that amount of RAM, even with ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS=yes and using tmpfs for everything that makes sense, and building a lot of the extra-large ports. My eight core package builder is maxed out at 32 GB of RAM. I just end up using swap pretty heavily. Towards the end of my package build runs, I typically see chromium, firefox, libreoffice, openoffice-4, openoffice-devel, and thunderbird all being built in parallel. The openoffice builds claim to need 11 GB of free diskspace each. Fortunately the stuff in tmpfs is not randomly accessed, so not much RAM is needed to hold the working set, so the machine seldom thrashes. I actually see very little disk activitity much of the time. At higher core counts, it's probably best to set a MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER limit. If you don't do that, then the number of parallel running threads will increase as the square of the number of CPU cores. My not yet in production Ryzen machine has eight cores and 16 SMT threads and is maxed out at 64 GB of RAM. I get the best overall poudriere run time with MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER=7. The problem not setting ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS=yes is that towards the end of the run, ports that take a long time to build will run for a long time with only one core being used and all of the other CPU cores idle. It would be nice if this was more dynamic, but that's difficult with each builder contained in its own jail. > Synth reduces that overhead somewhat by reusing the host system. Its > focus is more on keeping a single system up to date instead of compiling > sets of ports to custom repos for other systems and the curses UI is a > nice touch. Also synth can try to avoid building ports by prefetching > packages from an upstream repo. > > To be honest few FreeBSD devs still care about self hosting FreeBSD on > such tiny systems (0.5GB RAM, 1-2 cores). There are devs interested on > optimizing FreeBSD for small embedded systems but you aren't expected to > rebuild FreeBSD from source on a wireless access point or dedicated > firewall appliance. If you have to compile and value your time get > adequate hardware. Old 2U dual sockets servers may burn a lot of power > but are quite cheap and you don't have to run a compile server 24/7. My Pentium-M laptop with 1 or 2 GB of RAM is getting questionable for self-hosting. Just doing buildworld + buildkernel is an all day affair. Trying to use portmaster to do an upgrade in place would probably take a week assuming that it didn't run out of space or thrash itself to death. It runs firefox and OpenOffice just fine, but it is questionable as to whether it could build them. Then there is this machine: CPU: VIA Nehemiah (1000.06-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin="CentaurHauls" Id=0x698 Family=0x6 Model=0x9 Stepping=8 Features=0x381b93f VIA Padlock Features=0xdd real memory = 268435456 (256 MB) avail memory = 245055488 (233 MB) It is still perfectly adequate for the work that it does, but I don't even think I could "make buildworld" on it anymore, let alone build ports. I keep it up to date with freebsd-update and packages built on my packa
RE: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster
Thanks to everyone for replying. From: Stefan Esser [s...@freebsd.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 16:35 To: Tatsuki Makino; FreeBSD Ports ML Subject: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster > I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. Thank you very much. Will the new portmaster be version portmaster-4.x? ___ 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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017, Jan Bramkamp wrote: [ Cogent explanation deleted ] Thanks for that clear explanation; I've been promised a much bigger server in return for some contract work, so I'll start planning for it. -- Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer." ___ 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"
