Re: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Dave Horsfall]

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"

Re: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Don Lewis]

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

Re: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Matthias Apitz]

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

Re: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Chris H]

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)

[blubee blubeeme]

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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Lars Engels]

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)

[Matthias Apitz]

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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Vitaly Magerya]

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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Jan Beich]

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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Fernando Apesteguía]

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)

[Jan Bramkamp]

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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 6 Dec, 2017, at 17:15, Chris H  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:40:27 -0800 "Mel Pilgrim" 
>  said
> 
>> On 12/5/2017 2:25 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
>> > Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well as > 
>> > making it unusable, unstable.  You just don't know of all the countless > 
>> > hours spent after running an update and taking a week to get it working > 
>> > again.
>> I manage (currently) 104 FreeBSD systems that are a mix of 10.x and 11.x, 
>> on-metal and VM.  I use freebsd-update and poudriere.  The biggest issue in 
>> two years was back before I used poudriere and it was when the default 
>> version postgresql change I had to upgrade databases (something for which 
>> postgresql doesn't have automated tools).
>> The last time I had a major stability problem with FreeBSD was when I had a 
>> brand new Nocona Xeon system that would get interrupt storms running 5.x and 
>> had to run 6-CURRENT on it for a while because 6.x introduced MSI support.
>> The closest thing to a FreeBSD failure after that was Perl upgrades 
>> exploding all over the place because there was a time when the Ports Tree 
>> didn't handle Perl upgrades gracefully.
>> Looking back at two years of stats, all of the unplanned uptime resets are 
>> associated with hypervisor or power outages.
>> Experiences will vary, and it's totally fine if FreeBSD is not your cup of 
>> tea, but you're out of line condemning the project as a whole because your 
>> individual experience differed.
>> > It really helps motivate all of us users to continue to have to fix > 
>> > broken systems due to broken ports system and then be told how great > 
>> > things are, brings us so much joy and keeps our attitude positive.
>> I really don't know what advice to offer you other than that, from my 
>> observations, there is a very high correlation between people who have 
>> chronic stability problems with FreeBSD and people who insist on not using 
>> the officially endorsed tools and methods.
>> (Cue people utterly failing to understand statistics and citing single data 
>> points in 3, 2, 1...)
> In all fairness, and this applies to many;
> One would not make a change that breaks ABI, except on previously defined,
> and allowed boundaries (specific versions). Yet pkg was effectively dropped
> like a bomb. The affect of which spanned well out of the ports realm, and
> spilled quite heavily into $BASE. Here, now more than 2 OS releases later,
> we're still dealing with the aftermath. This caused substantial problems
> for *many*. Some of whom have moved on -- even long-time supporters, and
> contributors. In all fairness. Those that do not share your fairly ideal
> experiences, should also have a right to express their views/experiences.
> Even when you don't care to hear them. This is, after all, an open
> forum/mailing list. No?
> Nothing personal, Mel. Just saying. :)

This is a mailing list for people who are looking for help using or creating
ports. While the extreme hardships you experienced are regrettable, this
does not aid current users in creating or maintaining ports.

The right to express views/experiences on this list is constrained by the
need to keep things relevant to creating or using ports. Anger about flavors
is on-topic; personal trauma over pkg simply isn't. 

Please, folks, rein in the discussion here and get this thread back on-topic.

# 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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Baho Utot]

On 12/6/2017 6:36 PM, Mel Pilgrim wrote:

On 12/5/2017 2:09 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 05/12/2017 à 10:53, Aryeh Friedman a écrit :

TL;DR;
Flavors 'ed up ports and there are no good ways/alternates 
for how

to use the ports collection for normal everyday users/maintainers



Thank you for supporting all the hard work and countless hours that so
many volunteers put in making the ports tree better.

It really helps motivate all of us continue bringing the ports tree
forward when we get emails with so much joy and positive attitude.


FWIW, I've been chomping at the bit to try out flavours.

As for those complaining about, it's a remarkably small number of very 
loud people, but that's how it always is. 




I can say that I do get a laugh out them say poudriere is too much 
work, then insist on building everything from scratch or even bailing 
FreeBSD for LFS or Gentoo... ;)


I never said that "poudriere is too much work"  Should users not be able 
to reproduce the current packages?

It is trival on linux to do that, FreeBSD not so much.

I would rather have a rock solid base as which to start from then what 
exists currently in FreeBSD.


At least Linux works with most current hardware
___
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)

[Baho Utot]

On 12/6/2017 6:40 PM, Mel Pilgrim wrote:

On 12/5/2017 2:25 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well 
as making it unusable, unstable. You just don't know of all the 
countless hours spent after running an update and taking a week to 
get it working again.


I manage (currently) 104 FreeBSD systems that are a mix of 10.x and 
11.x, on-metal and VM.  I use freebsd-update and poudriere. The 
biggest issue in two years was back before I used poudriere and it was 
when the default version postgresql change I had to upgrade databases 
(something for which postgresql doesn't have automated tools).


The last time I had a major stability problem with FreeBSD was when I 
had a brand new Nocona Xeon system that would get interrupt storms 
running 5.x and had to run 6-CURRENT on it for a while because 6.x 
introduced MSI support.


The closest thing to a FreeBSD failure after that was Perl upgrades 
exploding all over the place because there was a time when the Ports 
Tree didn't handle Perl upgrades gracefully.


Looking back at two years of stats, all of the unplanned uptime resets 
are associated with hypervisor or power outages.


Experiences will vary, and it's totally fine if FreeBSD is not your 
cup of tea, but you're out of line condemning the project as a whole 
because your individual experience differed.


It really helps motivate all of us users to continue to have to fix 
broken systems due to broken ports system and then be told how great 
things are, brings us so much joy and keeps our attitude positive.


I really don't know what advice to offer you other than that, from my 
observations, there is a very high correlation between people who have 
chronic stability problems with FreeBSD and people who insist on not 
using the officially endorsed tools and methods.


(Cue people utterly failing to understand statistics and citing single 
data points in 3, 2, 1...)


Look at the so called "packaged base" it is nothing but an ungodly mess 
to put it mildly.  FreeBSD should have finished that project before 
starting all these "other" projects.  If you can not have a rock solid 
packaged base you really don't have much to stand upon. Hell when I 
tried "packaged base" and wanted to return to "standard base" No one 
here could tell me how to de-populate  the pkgng database of the 
packaged base entries.  I found a way that was trivaly to do that.  If 
the experts here can not or do not have a way to back out packaged base 
that says a whole lot about the credability of FreeBSD as a whole.


(Cue FreeBSD utterly failing run on newer hardware 3, 2, 1...)



___
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)

[Chris H]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:40:27 -0800 "Mel Pilgrim"  
said


On 12/5/2017 2:25 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
> Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well as 
> making it unusable, unstable.  You just don't know of all the countless 
> hours spent after running an update and taking a week to get it working 
> again.


I manage (currently) 104 FreeBSD systems that are a mix of 10.x and 
11.x, on-metal and VM.  I use freebsd-update and poudriere.  The biggest 
issue in two years was back before I used poudriere and it was when the 
default version postgresql change I had to upgrade databases (something 
for which postgresql doesn't have automated tools).


The last time I had a major stability problem with FreeBSD was when I 
had a brand new Nocona Xeon system that would get interrupt storms 
running 5.x and had to run 6-CURRENT on it for a while because 6.x 
introduced MSI support.


The closest thing to a FreeBSD failure after that was Perl upgrades 
exploding all over the place because there was a time when the Ports 
Tree didn't handle Perl upgrades gracefully.


Looking back at two years of stats, all of the unplanned uptime resets 
are associated with hypervisor or power outages.


Experiences will vary, and it's totally fine if FreeBSD is not your cup 
of tea, but you're out of line condemning the project as a whole because 
your individual experience differed.


> It really helps motivate all of us users to continue to have to fix 
> broken systems due to broken ports system and then be told how great 
> things are, brings us so much joy and keeps our attitude positive.


I really don't know what advice to offer you other than that, from my 
observations, there is a very high correlation between people who have 
chronic stability problems with FreeBSD and people who insist on not 
using the officially endorsed tools and methods.


(Cue people utterly failing to understand statistics and citing single 
data points in 3, 2, 1...)

In all fairness, and this applies to many;
One would not make a change that breaks ABI, except on previously defined,
and allowed boundaries (specific versions). Yet pkg was effectively dropped
like a bomb. The affect of which spanned well out of the ports realm, and
spilled quite heavily into $BASE. Here, now more than 2 OS releases later,
we're still dealing with the aftermath. This caused substantial problems
for *many*. Some of whom have moved on -- even long-time supporters, and
contributors. In all fairness. Those that do not share your fairly ideal
experiences, should also have a right to express their views/experiences.
Even when you don't care to hear them. This is, after all, an open
forum/mailing list. No?
Nothing personal, Mel. Just saying. :)

--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)

[Mel Pilgrim]

On 12/6/2017 3:40 PM, Mel Pilgrim wrote:
The last time I had a major stability problem with FreeBSD was when I 
had a brand new Nocona Xeon system that would get interrupt storms 
running 5.x and had to run 6-CURRENT on it for a while because 6.x 
introduced MSI support.


Or was that 4.x storming and 5-CURRENT that introduced MSIs?  That was a 
lot of years ago.

___
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)

[Mel Pilgrim]

On 12/5/2017 2:25 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well as 
making it unusable, unstable.  You just don't know of all the countless 
hours spent after running an update and taking a week to get it working 
again.


I manage (currently) 104 FreeBSD systems that are a mix of 10.x and 
11.x, on-metal and VM.  I use freebsd-update and poudriere.  The biggest 
issue in two years was back before I used poudriere and it was when the 
default version postgresql change I had to upgrade databases (something 
for which postgresql doesn't have automated tools).


The last time I had a major stability problem with FreeBSD was when I 
had a brand new Nocona Xeon system that would get interrupt storms 
running 5.x and had to run 6-CURRENT on it for a while because 6.x 
introduced MSI support.


The closest thing to a FreeBSD failure after that was Perl upgrades 
exploding all over the place because there was a time when the Ports 
Tree didn't handle Perl upgrades gracefully.


Looking back at two years of stats, all of the unplanned uptime resets 
are associated with hypervisor or power outages.


Experiences will vary, and it's totally fine if FreeBSD is not your cup 
of tea, but you're out of line condemning the project as a whole because 
your individual experience differed.


It really helps motivate all of us users to continue to have to fix 
broken systems due to broken ports system and then be told how great 
things are, brings us so much joy and keeps our attitude positive.


I really don't know what advice to offer you other than that, from my 
observations, there is a very high correlation between people who have 
chronic stability problems with FreeBSD and people who insist on not 
using the officially endorsed tools and methods.


(Cue people utterly failing to understand statistics and citing single 
data points in 3, 2, 1...)

___
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)

[Mel Pilgrim]

On 12/5/2017 2:09 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 05/12/2017 à 10:53, Aryeh Friedman a écrit :

TL;DR;
Flavors 'ed up ports and there are no good ways/alternates for how
to use the ports collection for normal everyday users/maintainers



Thank you for supporting all the hard work and countless hours that so
many volunteers put in making the ports tree better.

It really helps motivate all of us continue bringing the ports tree
forward when we get emails with so much joy and positive attitude.


FWIW, I've been chomping at the bit to try out flavours.

As for those complaining about, it's a remarkably small number of very 
loud people, but that's how it always is.  I can say that I do get a 
laugh out them say poudriere is too much work, then insist on building 
everything from scratch or even bailing FreeBSD for LFS or Gentoo... ;)

___
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)

[Dave Horsfall]

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.


--
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"

Re: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Lars Engels]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:09:06PM -0800, Ultima wrote:
> I wonder if making a simple man page for general users would be wise and
> referencing the fully featured man page in it for more experienced users?
> It seems that many users want a simple route and the current man page is
> simply too intimidating for them to even consider attempting to use. A
> small how to at the bottom like how Bryan suggested would be helpful as
> well. (Maybe leave out the amount of characters used bit =)
> 
> Poudriere is a powerful beast and I personally love it because of this. I
> felt very overwhelmed when I first started using it but not everyone is
> willing to take the time to get up to speed.
> 

I like the idea. Maybe even add it to tldr[1]?
Web version at [2]

[1] https://github.com/tldr-pages/tldr
[2] https://tldr.ostera.io/
___
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)

[Baho Utot]

On 12/06/17 08:59, Matthias Apitz wrote:

El día miércoles, diciembre 06, 2017 a las 08:26:41a. m. -0500, Baho Utot 
escribió:


For users of third party abandonware, well, they were warned that it was
bound to happen at one point, and guess what, it happened. I don't
really understand why you continue spending all this time complaining
whereas switching to, say, poudriere, would have taken you about 5 minutes.




Because I am a cranky old fart.  Anyway of all the things that you
posted nothing applies


Baho,

Can you please stop all that rant. It is all said now and your
statements will not change anything. Even more, there is nothing to
change. Just use poudriere as I do for some years now to update my ~5
laptops and netbooks.

matthias



Like I said nothing you post applies.
___
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)

[Matthias Apitz]

El día miércoles, diciembre 06, 2017 a las 08:26:41a. m. -0500, Baho Utot 
escribió:

> > For users of third party abandonware, well, they were warned that it was
> > bound to happen at one point, and guess what, it happened. I don't
> > really understand why you continue spending all this time complaining
> > whereas switching to, say, poudriere, would have taken you about 5 minutes.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Because I am a cranky old fart.  Anyway of all the things that you 
> posted nothing applies

Baho, 

Can you please stop all that rant. It is all said now and your
statements will not change anything. Even more, there is nothing to
change. Just use poudriere as I do for some years now to update my ~5
laptops and netbooks.

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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Baho Utot]

On 12/06/17 04:53, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 05/12/2017 à 23:25, Baho Utot a écrit :



On 12/05/17 17:09, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 05/12/2017 à 10:53, Aryeh Friedman a écrit :

TL;DR;
Flavors 'ed up ports and there are no good ways/alternates
for how
to use the ports collection for normal everyday users/maintainers



Thank you for supporting all the hard work and countless hours that so
many volunteers put in making the ports tree better.

It really helps motivate all of us continue bringing the ports tree
forward when we get emails with so much joy and positive attitude.




Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well
as making it unusable, unstable.  You just don't know of all the
countless hours spent after running an update and taking a week to get
it working again.

It really helps motivate all of us users to continue to have to fix
broken systems due to broken ports system and then be told how great
things are, brings us so much joy and keeps our attitude positive.


For the users using binary packages, poudriere, or the ports tree
directly nothing changed.

For users of third party abandonware, well, they were warned that it was
bound to happen at one point, and guess what, it happened. I don't
really understand why you continue spending all this time complaining
whereas switching to, say, poudriere, would have taken you about 5 minutes.




Because I am a cranky old fart.  Anyway of all the things that you 
posted nothing applies

___
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)

[Aryeh Friedman]

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Johan Hendriks 
wrote:

>
>
> Op 06/12/2017 om 10:53 schreef Mathieu Arnold:
> > Le 05/12/2017 à 23:25, Baho Utot a écrit :
> >>
> >> On 12/05/17 17:09, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> >>> Le 05/12/2017 à 10:53, Aryeh Friedman a écrit :
>  TL;DR;
>  Flavors 'ed up ports and there are no good ways/alternates
>  for how
>  to use the ports collection for normal everyday users/maintainers
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for supporting all the hard work and countless hours that so
> >>> many volunteers put in making the ports tree better.
> >>>
> >>> It really helps motivate all of us continue bringing the ports tree
> >>> forward when we get emails with so much joy and positive attitude.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well
> >> as making it unusable, unstable.  You just don't know of all the
> >> countless hours spent after running an update and taking a week to get
> >> it working again.
> >>
> >> It really helps motivate all of us users to continue to have to fix
> >> broken systems due to broken ports system and then be told how great
> >> things are, brings us so much joy and keeps our attitude positive.
> > For the users using binary packages, poudriere, or the ports tree
> > directly nothing changed.
> >
> > For users of third party abandonware, well, they were warned that it was
> > bound to happen at one point, and guess what, it happened. I don't
> > really understand why you continue spending all this time complaining
> > whereas switching to, say, poudriere, would have taken you about 5
> minutes.
>

Abandonware that until flavors *JUST WORKED* out of the box (no weird
configs/etc.)

Why was there not an Latest news item that the ports tree is going to
> receive flavour support in X days and that allmost all port tools will
> not work anymore, Why is there not an item that the ports tree is
> flavoured at this point?
>

This is the real problem for someone (like me) who just svn update and
portmaster -ad (after glancing through UPDATING to make sure there are no
weird issues) the note in UPDATING was the *FIRST TIME* I had ever heard of
flavors and it contained absolutely no info on how to migrate to it besides
a totally useless:
"  Ports using Python via USES=python are now flavored.  All the py3-* ports
  have been removed and folded into their py-* master ports.

  People using Poudriere 3.2+ and binary packages do not have to do
anything.

  For other people, to build the Python 3.6 version of, for example,
  databases/py-gdbm, you need to run:

# make FLAVOR=py36 install"

Says nothing at all about what flavors are, how they effect anything but
py-* and/or that they are a fundimental architural change.No pointers
to learn more.   It reeks of the opening sequence of the Outer Limits ("we
control the vertical, we control the horizontal,...") or something from
Orwell or Trump.

BTW I am slightly more then a casual user of FreeBSD (see interview in Fen.
2017 BSD Magazine) and I found it confusing.

-- 
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.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)

[Johan Hendriks]

Op 06/12/2017 om 10:53 schreef Mathieu Arnold:
> Le 05/12/2017 à 23:25, Baho Utot a écrit :
>>
>> On 12/05/17 17:09, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>>> Le 05/12/2017 à 10:53, Aryeh Friedman a écrit :
 TL;DR;
 Flavors 'ed up ports and there are no good ways/alternates
 for how
 to use the ports collection for normal everyday users/maintainers
>>>
>>> Thank you for supporting all the hard work and countless hours that so
>>> many volunteers put in making the ports tree better.
>>>
>>> It really helps motivate all of us continue bringing the ports tree
>>> forward when we get emails with so much joy and positive attitude.
>>>
>>>
>> Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well
>> as making it unusable, unstable.  You just don't know of all the
>> countless hours spent after running an update and taking a week to get
>> it working again.
>>
>> It really helps motivate all of us users to continue to have to fix
>> broken systems due to broken ports system and then be told how great
>> things are, brings us so much joy and keeps our attitude positive.
> For the users using binary packages, poudriere, or the ports tree
> directly nothing changed.
>
> For users of third party abandonware, well, they were warned that it was
> bound to happen at one point, and guess what, it happened. I don't
> really understand why you continue spending all this time complaining
> whereas switching to, say, poudriere, would have taken you about 5 minutes.
>
>
Well maybe people complain because it broke things for them.
Not every one is on the mailing list. There are a lot of people who use
FreeBSD and update there ports tree once in a while.
Secondly portmaster worked for the most of them, now they need to
install poudriere. Poudriere seems big.
I think FreeBSD confronted a lot of people with installing a new piece
of software they do not know.
Maybe a explanational webpage of how to replace portmaster with
poudriere would have made these discussions needless.
All they here now is you need to use poudriere, if you google at
poudriere you read a lot of things about dedicated poudriere farms and
it all sounds a little over whelming.
Do I need a build farm for these 10 ports ??
We need to make it as simple as possible for these people to use poudriere.
Most people where using portmaster -d -a
So explain them if you use portmaster -d -a then  install poudriere, put
this in your poudriere.conf and the run the following command.

Not of us are tech saffy's that like to install new stuff and find out
how it works, there are a lot of users that just USE FreeBSD and need it
to do things for them.

So for the next great ports addition create a wiki page and tell users
how they can do things. Take them by the hand. A lot of users really
like it and keep them in the FreeBSD camp instead of scaring them off.

Secondly, what is flavour, you need to google it to find anything about
it. Why is there not a link on the FreeBSD front page that links to a
full explanation at the ports flavour thing.
Why was there not an Latest news item that the ports tree is going to
receive flavour support in X days and that allmost all port tools will
not work anymore, Why is there not an item that the ports tree is
flavoured at this point?
These things that impact FreeBSD this much must be communicated a little
more.

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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Jan Bramkamp]

On 05.12.17 10:53, Aryeh Friedman wrote:

First some background (my typical use cases for ports):

0. FreeBSD lilith 11.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 11.1-RELEASE #0 r321664: Fri Jul 28
23:35:18 EDT 2017 root@lilith:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  amd64

1. Daily routine (current):

   cd /usr/src
   svn update (from 11.1-RELEASE)
   [make -DESTDIR=/ world kernel&& as needed]

   cd /usr/ports
   svn update (from HEAD)
   portmaster -ad
   [reboot if any Xorg/xfce or stuff in rc.d got modified]

2. I maintain devel/aegis (which as per Bug 219284 does not compile with
anything greater then GCC 5 [I don't have time to figure out how to patch
it is make it work {the upstream maintainer died a few years ago}]).

So what happens when I see UPDATING 20171130:

1. I decide to try poudriere since it seems to what people are raving
about.   What a 'ing confusing mess it is use After deciding it
is over kill I go to option 2

2. I installed synth (2.00) and *ATTEMPTED* to do a upgrade-system with the
following results (still not a successful run):

 a. Hard freezes the machine (not even a kernel panic) 4 times in a row

 b. Skips devel/aegis recompile because it can't understand the makefile
or something (see above).  *BUT* gives no clues as to why and gives me
nothing actionable on how to repair the port


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.



3. The suggestion of using plainly old make install on each port is
unworkable because it is fundamentally error prone with my daily use case.


Nobody suggested doing that. You're just running abandonware and the 
ports tree broke compatiblity that was never promised. Your options are 
to move to a supported wrapper around the ports tree or to take up fix 
your existing wrapper to deal with the change.



TL;DR;
Flavors 'ed up ports and there are no good ways/alternates for how
to use the ports collection for normal everyday users/maintainers


For a single system synth works well and is easy to setup. If it crashes 
your system something is very wrong indeed. Userspace software shouldn't 
be able to crash the system. Especially not by accident. This a bug that 
should be 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: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Greg Byshenk]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:25:13PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote:

> Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well as 
> making it unusable, unstable.  You just don't know of all the countless 
> hours spent after running an update and taking a week to get it working 
> again.

Though I am only a user, I will add that, while the old system
may have been "perfectly good" for some use cases, the absence
of 'flvors' (or something similar) made the ports system at 
least very difficult to use (if not, perhaps, completely
"unusable") for others.

-- 
greg byshenk  -  gbysh...@byshenk.net  -  Leiden, NL
___
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)

[Aryeh Friedman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Jonathan Chen  wrote:

> On 5 December 2017 at 22:53, Aryeh Friedman 
> wrote:
> [...]
> > 2. I installed synth (2.00) and *ATTEMPTED* to do a upgrade-system with
> the
> > following results (still not a successful run):
> >
> > a. Hard freezes the machine (not even a kernel panic) 4 times in a
> row
>
> synth runs parallel builds using multi-workers, and it can trash the
> hard disk pretty hard as it uses swap for tmpfs. Reduce the number of
> workers and/or jobs if you intend using the box during a build.
>
>
2 of the hard freezes came after reducing the number of workers to 1 (from
3)



-- 
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.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)

[Mathieu Arnold]

Le 05/12/2017 à 23:25, Baho Utot a écrit :
>
>
> On 12/05/17 17:09, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> Le 05/12/2017 à 10:53, Aryeh Friedman a écrit :
>>> TL;DR;
>>> Flavors 'ed up ports and there are no good ways/alternates
>>> for how
>>> to use the ports collection for normal everyday users/maintainers
>>
>>
>> Thank you for supporting all the hard work and countless hours that so
>> many volunteers put in making the ports tree better.
>>
>> It really helps motivate all of us continue bringing the ports tree
>> forward when we get emails with so much joy and positive attitude.
>>
>>
>
> Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well
> as making it unusable, unstable.  You just don't know of all the
> countless hours spent after running an update and taking a week to get
> it working again.
>
> It really helps motivate all of us users to continue to have to fix
> broken systems due to broken ports system and then be told how great
> things are, brings us so much joy and keeps our attitude positive.

For the users using binary packages, poudriere, or the ports tree
directly nothing changed.

For users of third party abandonware, well, they were warned that it was
bound to happen at one point, and guess what, it happened. I don't
really understand why you continue spending all this time complaining
whereas switching to, say, poudriere, would have taken you about 5 minutes.


-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Ultima]

I wonder if making a simple man page for general users would be wise and
referencing the fully featured man page in it for more experienced users?
It seems that many users want a simple route and the current man page is
simply too intimidating for them to even consider attempting to use. A
small how to at the bottom like how Bryan suggested would be helpful as
well. (Maybe leave out the amount of characters used bit =)

Poudriere is a powerful beast and I personally love it because of this. I
felt very overwhelmed when I first started using it but not everyone is
willing to take the time to get up to speed.

Best regards,
Richard Gallamore

On Dec 5, 2017 3:30 PM, "Mark Linimon"  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:25:13PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote:
> > Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well as
> > making it unusable, unstable.
>
> You made your point 10 posts ago.
>
> You are repeating yourself.
>
> Why???
>
> mcl
> ___
> 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)

[Per olof Ljungmark]

On 12/05/17 23:25, Baho Utot wrote:
> Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well as
> making it unusable, unstable.  You just don't know of all the countless
> hours spent after running an update and taking a week to get it working
> again.
> 
> It really helps motivate all of us users to continue to have to fix
> broken systems due to broken ports system and then be told how great
> things are, brings us so much joy and keeps our attitude positive.

Please, can we just get on with our lives, a lot of good people are
already working hard to fix whatever needs to be fixed.

Patience is a virtue

//per
___
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)

[Mark Linimon]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:25:13PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote:
> Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well as
> making it unusable, unstable.

You made your point 10 posts ago.

You are repeating yourself.

Why???

mcl
___
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)

[Baho Utot]

On 12/05/17 17:09, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 05/12/2017 à 10:53, Aryeh Friedman a écrit :

TL;DR;
Flavors 'ed up ports and there are no good ways/alternates for how
to use the ports collection for normal everyday users/maintainers



Thank you for supporting all the hard work and countless hours that so
many volunteers put in making the ports tree better.

It really helps motivate all of us continue bringing the ports tree
forward when we get emails with so much joy and positive attitude.




Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well as 
making it unusable, unstable.  You just don't know of all the countless 
hours spent after running an update and taking a week to get it working 
again.


It really helps motivate all of us users to continue to have to fix 
broken systems due to broken ports system and then be told how great 
things are, brings us so much joy and keeps our attitude positive.


___
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)

[Mathieu Arnold]

Le 05/12/2017 à 10:53, Aryeh Friedman a écrit :
> TL;DR;
> Flavors 'ed up ports and there are no good ways/alternates for how
> to use the ports collection for normal everyday users/maintainers


Thank you for supporting all the hard work and countless hours that so
many volunteers put in making the ports tree better.

It really helps motivate all of us continue bringing the ports tree
forward when we get emails with so much joy and positive attitude.


-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Bryan Drewery]

On 12/5/2017 1:53 AM, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> 1. I decide to try poudriere since it seems to what people are raving
> about.   What a 'ing confusing mess it is use After deciding it
> is over kill I go to option 2


1 time setup:
  echo ZPOOL=zroot >> /usr/local/etc/poudriere.conf
  poudriere jail -c -j 11amd64 -v 11.1-RELEASE
  poudriere ports -c
After that:
  # edit /some/file and add your port list
  poudriere bulk -j 11amd64 -f /some/file

You typed 1612 characters in this email but poudriere would have taken
157 at a minimum.

Looking at
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports-poudriere.html
it also agrees with my setup advice, very trivial.

There's this silly idea that Poudriere is hard to setup.  It's not
tinderbox which required maintaining an external database and migrations
on it and such.  I do agree Poudriere has option and command overload
which makes it confusing, but the official guide is to the point and
mostly simple (it needlessly uses -p and -z when not needed).
Customizing its options are something to be done optionally later.

I do like that synth supports upgrading the *HOST* more simply.  I want
to add such a feature to Poudriere as well eventually.

-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
bdrewery@freenode/EFNet
___
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)

[Baho Utot]

On 12/05/17 04:53, Aryeh Friedman wrote:

First some background (my typical use cases for ports):

0. FreeBSD lilith 11.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 11.1-RELEASE #0 r321664: Fri Jul 28
23:35:18 EDT 2017 root@lilith:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  amd64

1. Daily routine (current):

   cd /usr/src
   svn update (from 11.1-RELEASE)
   [make -DESTDIR=/ world kernel&& as needed]

   cd /usr/ports
   svn update (from HEAD)
   portmaster -ad
   [reboot if any Xorg/xfce or stuff in rc.d got modified]

2. I maintain devel/aegis (which as per Bug 219284 does not compile with
anything greater then GCC 5 [I don't have time to figure out how to patch
it is make it work {the upstream maintainer died a few years ago}]).

So what happens when I see UPDATING 20171130:

1. I decide to try poudriere since it seems to what people are raving
about.   What a 'ing confusing mess it is use After deciding it
is over kill I go to option 2

2. I installed synth (2.00) and *ATTEMPTED* to do a upgrade-system with the
following results (still not a successful run):

 a. Hard freezes the machine (not even a kernel panic) 4 times in a row

 b. Skips devel/aegis recompile because it can't understand the makefile
or something (see above).  *BUT* gives no clues as to why and gives me
nothing actionable on how to repair the port

3. The suggestion of using plainly old make install on each port is
unworkable because it is fundamentally error prone with my daily use case.

TL;DR;
Flavors 'ed up ports and there are no good ways/alternates for how
to use the ports collection for normal everyday users/maintainers



Welcome to the state of the art of FreeBSD
___
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)

[Jonathan Chen]

On 5 December 2017 at 22:53, Aryeh Friedman  wrote:
[...]
> 2. I installed synth (2.00) and *ATTEMPTED* to do a upgrade-system with the
> following results (still not a successful run):
>
> a. Hard freezes the machine (not even a kernel panic) 4 times in a row

synth runs parallel builds using multi-workers, and it can trash the
hard disk pretty hard as it uses swap for tmpfs. Reduce the number of
workers and/or jobs if you intend using the box during a build.

Cheers.
-- 
Jonathan Chen 
___
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)

[Lars Engels]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:53:07AM -0500, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> First some background (my typical use cases for ports):
> 
> 0. FreeBSD lilith 11.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 11.1-RELEASE #0 r321664: Fri Jul 28
> 23:35:18 EDT 2017 root@lilith:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  amd64
> 
> 1. Daily routine (current):
> 
>   cd /usr/src
>   svn update (from 11.1-RELEASE)
>   [make -DESTDIR=/ world kernel&& as needed]
> 
>   cd /usr/ports
>   svn update (from HEAD)
>   portmaster -ad
>   [reboot if any Xorg/xfce or stuff in rc.d got modified]
> 
> 2. I maintain devel/aegis (which as per Bug 219284 does not compile with
> anything greater then GCC 5 [I don't have time to figure out how to patch
> it is make it work {the upstream maintainer died a few years ago}]).
> 
> So what happens when I see UPDATING 20171130:
> 
> 1. I decide to try poudriere since it seems to what people are raving
> about.   What a 'ing confusing mess it is use After deciding it
> is over kill I go to option 2

[...]

What's wrong with [1]?

[1] 
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports-poudriere.html
___
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"

Flavors *COMPLETELY* break the port system (synth and poudriere are useless)

[Aryeh Friedman]

First some background (my typical use cases for ports):

0. FreeBSD lilith 11.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 11.1-RELEASE #0 r321664: Fri Jul 28
23:35:18 EDT 2017 root@lilith:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  amd64

1. Daily routine (current):

  cd /usr/src
  svn update (from 11.1-RELEASE)
  [make -DESTDIR=/ world kernel&& as needed]

  cd /usr/ports
  svn update (from HEAD)
  portmaster -ad
  [reboot if any Xorg/xfce or stuff in rc.d got modified]

2. I maintain devel/aegis (which as per Bug 219284 does not compile with
anything greater then GCC 5 [I don't have time to figure out how to patch
it is make it work {the upstream maintainer died a few years ago}]).

So what happens when I see UPDATING 20171130:

1. I decide to try poudriere since it seems to what people are raving
about.   What a 'ing confusing mess it is use After deciding it
is over kill I go to option 2

2. I installed synth (2.00) and *ATTEMPTED* to do a upgrade-system with the
following results (still not a successful run):

a. Hard freezes the machine (not even a kernel panic) 4 times in a row

b. Skips devel/aegis recompile because it can't understand the makefile
or something (see above).  *BUT* gives no clues as to why and gives me
nothing actionable on how to repair the port

3. The suggestion of using plainly old make install on each port is
unworkable because it is fundamentally error prone with my daily use case.

TL;DR;
Flavors 'ed up ports and there are no good ways/alternates for how
to use the ports collection for normal everyday users/maintainers
-- 
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.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"