Re: Is there a way to subscribe to the commit messages for only ports you maintain?
On 18-5-2021 03:56, Chris wrote:
On 2021-05-17 18:17, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Chris wrote:
On 2021-05-17 16:30, Jan Beich wrote:
> Chris writes:
>
>> I'd like to subscribe to the commit messages
>> ( dev-commits-ports-all )
>> but only receive messages that affect me -- the
>> ports I currently maintain. Is it possible? Or
>> am I just dreaming? ;-)
>
> No clue but I use Herald rules for something similar.
Thanks for the hints, Jan. :-)
Herald ? Nothing from
https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=herald&stype=all&sektion=all
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phabricator
...
https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/devel/phabricator/pkg-descr
I'd use /usr/ports/mail/procmail
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/dev-commits-ports-all/2021-May/date.html
~/.procmailrc example:
:0 H
* ^Sender: owner-dev-commits-ports-...@freebsd.org
{
:0 H
* ^Subject: git: .+ sysutils/rubygem-bolt
| $RCVSTORE +dir_of_ports_you_might_maintain
:0 H
* ^Subject: git: .+ x11/xterm
| $RCVSTORE +another_dir_of_ports_you_might_maintain
}
or eg: # mkdir ~/Mail/your_ports
:0 H
* ^Sender: owner-dev-commits-ports-...@freebsd.org
* ^Subject: git: .+
(archivers/bzip|audio/pocketsphinx|audio/snd|comms/pr|comms/sms_client|databases/pgaccess|devel/c2mdoc|devel/compiz-bcop|devel/ecgi|devel/codeville|devel/frink|dns/dnscheckengine|dns/ldapdns|graphics/gdtclft|graphics/gimmage|graphics/repng2jpeg|graphics/urt|lang/picoc|net/beacon|net/openradius|net/spread|net/wackamole|net-im/mbpurple|sysutils/cdroot|sysutils/ffs2recov|sysutils/rsyncbackup|textproc/asm2html|textproc/smi|textproc/sansi|www/spreadlogd|www/ttf2eot|x11/wmblob|x11/xvt|x11-themes/kde-icons-graphite-rade8|x11-toolkits/iwidgets|x11-wm/icewm)
| $RCVSTORE +your_ports
Wow! Thanks Julian. You even did all my homework for me.! ;-)
In fact I think your re would even satisfy Herald.
Yup, this is a great example.
I had been wining about the same problem in private, but dit not even
realize that this list is available.
Perhaps this piece of code and suggestion for commits-ports-all could go
into the porters manual?
--WjW
___
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: freebsd-ports Digest, Vol 933, Issue 7
On 18-4-2021 16:51, Adriaan de Groot wrote: On Sunday, 18 April 2021 14:00:01 CEST freebsd-ports-requ...@freebsd.org wrote: So perhaps that is the best way to avoid having to deal with ABI/API breakage... After that it is up to the maintainers of the dependant packages to update their package and start using boost-1.75. There is the implicit assumption that a patch that updates boost for all the dependent ports should also provide fixes if those ports fail to build after the update. That is the major task. There are "only" 490 ports that have boost in their Makefile. Compare this to CMake, which has about 1900 direct consumers. While there's less ABI-breakage and more configure- and build-time breakage, a CMake update looks like this: - build all the consumers with the current version of CMake - fix the ones that don't build, or mark BROKEN - bump CMake locally - build everything again - fix the ones that don't build The actual CMake parts are the easy bits. Dealing with 15-year old C++ code that happens to use CMake and falls over for totally unrelated reasons is the real time sink. Ceph, too, is one of those things that eventually gets added to my ignore list as "doesn't build in any recent ports checkout": /usr/local/bin/ld: ../../../lib/libkv.a(LevelDBStore.cc.o): (.data.rel.ro._ZTI17CephLevelDBLogger[_ZTI17CephLevelDBLogger]+0x10): undefined reference to `typeinfo for leveldb::Logger' I fix what I can, send mail to maintainers when I can't and so we hope that progress happens Hi Adriaan, I understand your pain. I'm in the squeeze that Ceph has moved to new version, which I do get to build/test in my jenkins builders. But I'm/was sort of waiting for the move to git with ports. And then figure out how to get things to work again with the latest release. Unfortunately I got little time at the moment, so progress there is slow. And you are right that it hard to find the cause for this, since so many things have changed: Ceph source, Cmake config, llvm compiler and linker and leveldb. So the permutations are plenty. If you want to fix the above (which I also got in my builders, and have not found the root cause for) you could add `-D WITH_LEVELDB=OFF` to the CMAKE options. Hopefully I get around to submitting a patch to get ceph14 to v14.2.20 real soon now. --WjW ___ 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: Boost versions
On 17-4-2021 13:09, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 6:58 PM Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! Ceph has moved to Boost 1.75, so now it is build with the project. Which is of course a pity. Are there any plans to also get Boost 1.75 in ports? There is this one PR which touches the topic: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246106 It looks like a major undertaking! Why is that? If I look at what is in phabricator, the largest part is diffs on the plist? I don't think office@ currently has enough manpower to maintain boost ports. I suggest we need to seek a new maintainer or form a group to maintain it. I am also interested in updating boost, but I don't think I can maintain it solely. I can help on porting, allocating resource to test, but I don't think I can fix all the issues during upgrading and exp-run myself alone. I hope the maintenance of the complex ports like this can be a team work. Is anyone interested in joining the effort? I am importing boost 1.75 raw into Ceph, and build it there. That seems to work for what ceph needs. There used to be several versions of Boost in parallel. So perhaps that is the best way to avoid having to deal with ABI/API breakage... After that it is up to the maintainers of the dependant packages to update their package and start using boost-1.75. The report in bugzilla suggests that that is all what other maintainers ask. Or am I too simple in thinking this? --WjW ___ 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: Boost versions
On 17-4-2021 14:16, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Getting the port to build is one thing. Right that is probably not very complicated. But the API/ABI changes are indeed a pain. Reason for all kinds of trouble with Ceph as well. There used to be several versions of Boost in parallel. Yes. I have no idea how easy that would be. Neither do I, it is just a vague recollection. But there must be more libraries with that same challenge? The bigger part is, as you described: So perhaps that is the best way to avoid having to deal with ABI/API breakage... After that it is up to the maintainers of the dependant packages to update their package and start using boost-1.75. There is the implicit assumption that a patch that updates boost for all the dependent ports should also provide fixes if those ports fail to build after the update. That is the major task. There are "only" 490 ports that have boost in their Makefile. Or am I too simple in thinking this? No. The normal way would be to provide the patch, testbuild all the depends, list the broken ports in the PR and then a small group of folks can try to fix them one by one. I have no experience in that. Keeping up with Ceph is already quite a task, since that is a very fast moving task. --WjW ___ 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: Boost versions
On 17-4-2021 13:09, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 6:58 PM Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! Ceph has moved to Boost 1.75, so now it is build with the project. Which is of course a pity. Are there any plans to also get Boost 1.75 in ports? There is this one PR which touches the topic: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246106 It looks like a major undertaking! Why is that? If I look at what is in phabricator, the largest part is diffs on the plist? I don't think office@ currently has enough manpower to maintain boost ports. I suggest we need to seek a new maintainer or form a group to maintain it. I am also interested in updating boost, but I don't think I can maintain it solely. I can help on porting, allocating resource to test, but I don't think I can fix all the issues during upgrading and exp-run myself alone. I hope the maintenance of the complex ports like this can be a team work. Is anyone interested in joining the effort? I am importing boost 1.75 raw into Ceph, and build it there. That seems to work for what ceph needs. There used to be several versions of Boost in parallel. So perhaps that is the best way to avoid having to deal with ABI/API breakage... After that it is up to the maintainers of the dependant packages to update their package and start using boost-1.75. The report in bugzilla suggests that that is all what other maintainers ask. Or am I too simple in thinking this? --WjW ___ 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"
Boost versions
Hi, Ceph has moved to Boost 1.75, so now it is build with the project. Which is of course a pity. Are there any plans to also get Boost 1.75 in ports? --WjW ___ 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"
