Re: Ports vs packages

[Stefan Esser]

Am 26.08.18 um 21:55 schrieb Gregory Byshenk:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 01:01:24PM +0200, Jos Chrispijn wrote:
>> On 26-8-2018 2:07, Pete Wright wrote:
>>> one thing i do for my systems is if there is an update to a port i 
>>> need/want to test before the official build cluster is done is run a 
>>> "make package" in the port directory.? then i can install the updated 
>>> code as a pkg for future upgrade convenience.? this works great for 
>>> ports without many external dependencies at build-time, not so much 
>>> when things like llvm need to be build ;)
>>
>> I did that once myself but ended in total chaos because I found out that 
>> using ports and packages next to each other is not a good marriage.
>> Port options that may have been enabled may be overuled by packages 
>> (which are always built using the default options). Not for a specific 
>> port but with regards to the depencies is will us (and which may already 
>> been installed as packages).
>>
>> I am quite a nub on this, so perhaps the problems were otherwise. Since 
>> I completely switched to packages, these issues are gone.
> 
> If you are using packages by default, then this shouldn't
> really be a problem. Your packages should have default 
> options, so if you build one port - using the default 
> options! - then there should be no serious conflict. At
> least when there are few/no dependencies, as Pete notes.
> 
> Where you can get into problems is if you are building 
> using ports by default, along with non-standard options,
> and then try to add packages. That can get very ugly.

To be fully compatible with official packages, you have to build in
Poudriere with the same FreeBSD version as used of the official builds.

Building in your host environment might cause conflicts between shared
libraries, if the shared library version used for the packages (from the
oldest supported release of the FreeBSD version you use) might be too old
to match what you use in a newer release of that FreeBSD version.

Regards, STefan
___
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: Ports vs packages

[Gregory Byshenk]

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 01:01:24PM +0200, Jos Chrispijn wrote:
> On 26-8-2018 2:07, Pete Wright wrote:
> > one thing i do for my systems is if there is an update to a port i 
> > need/want to test before the official build cluster is done is run a 
> > "make package" in the port directory.? then i can install the updated 
> > code as a pkg for future upgrade convenience.? this works great for 
> > ports without many external dependencies at build-time, not so much 
> > when things like llvm need to be build ;)
> 
> I did that once myself but ended in total chaos because I found out that 
> using ports and packages next to each other is not a good marriage.
> Port options that may have been enabled may be overuled by packages 
> (which are always built using the default options). Not for a specific 
> port but with regards to the depencies is will us (and which may already 
> been installed as packages).
> 
> I am quite a nub on this, so perhaps the problems were otherwise. Since 
> I completely switched to packages, these issues are gone.

If you are using packages by default, then this shouldn't
really be a problem. Your packages should have default 
options, so if you build one port - using the default 
options! - then there should be no serious conflict. At
least when there are few/no dependencies, as Pete notes.

Where you can get into problems is if you are building 
using ports by default, along with non-standard options,
and then try to add packages. That can get very ugly.

-- 
gregory 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: Ports vs packages

[Jos Chrispijn]

On 26-8-2018 2:07, Pete Wright wrote:
one thing i do for my systems is if there is an update to a port i 
need/want to test before the official build cluster is done is run a 
"make package" in the port directory.  then i can install the updated 
code as a pkg for future upgrade convenience.  this works great for 
ports without many external dependencies at build-time, not so much 
when things like llvm need to be build ;)


I did that once myself but ended in total chaos because I found out that 
using ports and packages next to each other is not a good marriage.
Port options that may have been enabled may be overuled by packages 
(which are always built using the default options). Not for a specific 
port but with regards to the depencies is will us (and which may already 
been installed as packages).


I am quite a nub on this, so perhaps the problems were otherwise. Since 
I completely switched to packages, these issues are gone.


/jos
___
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: Ports vs packages

[Pete Wright]

On 8/25/18 4:29 AM, Jos Chrispijn wrote:
How many times is there between the release of a port and its package 
- is that depending on the port maintainer?




one thing i do for my systems is if there is an update to a port i 
need/want to test before the official build cluster is done is run a 
"make package" in the port directory.  then i can install the updated 
code as a pkg for future upgrade convenience.  this works great for 
ports without many external dependencies at build-time, not so much when 
things like llvm need to be build ;)


-pete

--
Pete Wright
p...@nomadlogic.org
@nomadlogicLA

___
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: Ports vs packages

[Jos Chrispijn]

On 25-8-2018 14:42, Dries Michiels wrote:

How many times is there between the release of a port and its package - is
that depending on the port maintainer?

This does not depend on the port maintainer. Ports are the master! Packages
are simply built ports.
These packages are built in bulk on the FreeBSD clusters.
Depending on when a rebuild of a new revision of the ports tree is initiated
it can take up to a few days.

I see, thanks for clearing out.
BR, Jos
___
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: Ports vs packages

[Dries Michiels]

> How many times is there between the release of a port and its package - is
> that depending on the port maintainer?

This does not depend on the port maintainer. Ports are the master! Packages
are simply built ports.
These packages are built in bulk on the FreeBSD clusters.
Depending on when a rebuild of a new revision of the ports tree is initiated
it can take up to a few days.

> thanks,
> Jos
> 
> ___
> 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"

Ports vs packages

[Jos Chrispijn]

How many times is there between the release of a port and its package - 
is that depending on the port maintainer?


thanks,
Jos

___
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: Ports and Packages

[Dave Horsfall]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Jos Chrispijn wrote:

Due to a mistake (...) I now got a mix of ports and packages on my BSD 
system.


What mistake?

Can someone advise how to savely switch to packages only on this live 
system?


Why?  I run both ports and packages (the latter when I discovered that 
Ruby blew away my swap/tmp) with no problems.


I prefer to use ports because that way I get to specify the options that I 
want (as opposed to generic ones which may not apply to me), but I'll use 
the package when someone assumes that I have both terabytes and gigahertz 
to burn...


--
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: Ports and Packages

[Guido Falsi]

On 04/20/18 15:53, Jos Chrispijn wrote:
> Due to a mistake (...) I now got a mix of ports and packageson my BSD
> system.
> 
> Can someone advise how to savely switch to packages only on this live
> system?
> 

"pkg upgrade -f " is the only way that comes
to mind. It all depends on your definition of "safely". There is a fixed
inherent risk to such operations.

If the ports you installed locally all used default options there is
relatively little chance of disruption. If you used custom options there
could be problems or missing functionality.

Apart from that pkg upgrade itself usually does the right thing and
should not be causing problems itself.

-- 
Guido Falsi 
___
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"

Ports and Packages

[Jos Chrispijn]

Due to a mistake (...) I now got a mix of ports and packageson my BSD 
system.


Can someone advise how to savely switch to packages only on this live 
system?


Thanks,
Jos
___
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: Switching from building ports to packages

[Patrick Powell]

On 09/14/14 20:09, Chad J. Milios wrote:

On 09/14/14 16:34, Matt Reimer wrote:

I'd like to switch from building everything from source using ports to
using packages as much as possible. This requires identifying which 
ports
I'm currently building use the same port knobs as the binary packages 
that
FreeBSD builds. Is there an easy way of showing how my port configs 
differ

from the defaults that are used to build binary packages?

Thanks in advance.

Matt

this script below will do exactly that from the port building machine 
if you built them all in one place. (it gathers from 
/var/db/ports/*/options but does not mine the data from 
/var/db/pkg/local.sqlite.) if you'd like to extract options out of 
your installed binary pkg ng's or pkg_og's or dir of .txz's or .tbz's 
laying around somewhere and compare those to the current ports tree, 
let me know. it's slightly more difficult but not terrible.


in case of mail munging and for your convenience this script is posted 
to https://cargobay.net/LpYDhX3U with SHA256 (LpYDhX3U) = 
4ef3dae564d861fd32efad267bb3e360a498d4688bb86fca7e2a0a195e58a34f


#!/bin/sh
_=/dev/null
cd /usr/ports
_a=PORT_DBDIR=/var/empty
for p in /var/db/ports/*; do
p=${p#/*/*/*/}
c=${p%%_*}
d=${p#*_}
if cd $c/$d; then
for z in a b; do
eval make \$_$z showconfig 2$_  /tmp/$$.$z
done
if ! diff /tmp/$$.[ab] $_; then
echo $c/$d
diff /tmp/$$.[ab] | grep ^ | cut -c 2-
fi
cd ../..
fi
done
rm /tmp/$$.[ab]

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org



Ahh!!!  Thank you.

Just to get this on record and to be able to search and find it - could 
you post the script that does the check against the pkgng database?


If you are downloading the packages from the 'standard' FreeBSD package 
repository it would be useful to be able to see what options they built 
the packages with.

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Switching from building ports to packages

[Matt Reimer]

I'd like to switch from building everything from source using ports to
using packages as much as possible. This requires identifying which ports
I'm currently building use the same port knobs as the binary packages that
FreeBSD builds. Is there an easy way of showing how my port configs differ
from the defaults that are used to build binary packages?

Thanks in advance.

Matt
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Switching from building ports to packages

[Chad J. Milios]

On 09/14/14 16:34, Matt Reimer wrote:

I'd like to switch from building everything from source using ports to
using packages as much as possible. This requires identifying which ports
I'm currently building use the same port knobs as the binary packages that
FreeBSD builds. Is there an easy way of showing how my port configs differ
from the defaults that are used to build binary packages?

Thanks in advance.

Matt

this script below will do exactly that from the port building machine if 
you built them all in one place. (it gathers from 
/var/db/ports/*/options but does not mine the data from 
/var/db/pkg/local.sqlite.) if you'd like to extract options out of your 
installed binary pkg ng's or pkg_og's or dir of .txz's or .tbz's laying 
around somewhere and compare those to the current ports tree, let me 
know. it's slightly more difficult but not terrible.


in case of mail munging and for your convenience this script is posted 
to https://cargobay.net/LpYDhX3U with SHA256 (LpYDhX3U) = 
4ef3dae564d861fd32efad267bb3e360a498d4688bb86fca7e2a0a195e58a34f


#!/bin/sh
_=/dev/null
cd /usr/ports
_a=PORT_DBDIR=/var/empty
for p in /var/db/ports/*; do
p=${p#/*/*/*/}
c=${p%%_*}
d=${p#*_}
if cd $c/$d; then
for z in a b; do
eval make \$_$z showconfig 2$_  /tmp/$$.$z
done
if ! diff /tmp/$$.[ab] $_; then
echo $c/$d
diff /tmp/$$.[ab] | grep ^ | cut -c 2-
fi
cd ../..
fi
done
rm /tmp/$$.[ab]

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Switching from building ports to packages

[Chad J. Milios]

On 09/14/14 16:34, Matt Reimer wrote:

I'd like to switch from building everything from source using ports to
using packages as much as possible. This requires identifying which ports
I'm currently building use the same port knobs as the binary packages that
FreeBSD builds. Is there an easy way of showing how my port configs differ
from the defaults that are used to build binary packages?

Thanks in advance.

Matt

IMPORTANT not to forget that things you may have put in your 
/etc/make.conf such as DEFAULT_VERSIONS etc may affect far more ports 
than you realize even when those ports have default OPTIONS.

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Ports or packages?

[Stan Gammons]

I know the binary packages were taken down after the security incident a while 
back. Are many/any binary packages available now or does one still have to 
build most everything from ports?  If binary packages are available now, what 
is the URL to the repository?

Stan
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Ports or packages?

[Mehmet Erol Sanliturk]

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Stan Gammons s_gamm...@charter.net wrote:

 I know the binary packages were taken down after the security incident a
 while back. Are many/any binary packages available now or does one still
 have to build most everything from ports?  If binary packages are available
 now, what is the URL to the repository?

 Stan
 ___


http://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html

ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
ftp://ftp1.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
ftp://ftp2.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/



Thank you very much .

Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Ports or packages?

[Stan Gammons]

On Aug 11, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk m.e.sanlit...@gmail.com 
wrote:

 On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Stan Gammons s_gamm...@charter.net wrote:
 
 I know the binary packages were taken down after the security incident a
 while back. Are many/any binary packages available now or does one still
 have to build most everything from ports?  If binary packages are available
 now, what is the URL to the repository?
 
 Stan
 ___
 http://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html
 
 ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
 ftp://ftp1.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
 ftp://ftp2.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
 


Assuming one has converted to the new packagement tool and added WITH_PKGNG=yes 
to /etc/make.conf, one could use the links for packagesite in pkg.conf to 
install binary packages with pkg?  Can one have multiple packagesite statements 
in pkg.conf?

I see the repositories don't have the latest versions, so portupgrade or 
portmaster would be needed to upgrade to the latest versions from ports?  If 
so, can one mix and match pkg and portupgrade or portmaster or is that asking 
for trouble?  i.e. use pkg to install packages and portupgrade or portmaster to 
upgrade packages.


Stan







___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Ports or packages?

[Mehmet Erol Sanliturk]

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Stan Gammons s_gamm...@charter.net wrote:


 On Aug 11, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk 
 m.e.sanlit...@gmail.com wrote:

  On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Stan Gammons s_gamm...@charter.net
 wrote:
 
  I know the binary packages were taken down after the security incident a
  while back. Are many/any binary packages available now or does one still
  have to build most everything from ports?  If binary packages are
 available
  now, what is the URL to the repository?
 
  Stan
  ___
  http://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html
 
  ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
  ftp://ftp1.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
  ftp://ftp2.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
 


 Assuming one has converted to the new packagement tool and added
 WITH_PKGNG=yes to /etc/make.conf, one could use the links for packagesite
 in pkg.conf to install binary packages with pkg?  Can one have multiple
 packagesite statements in pkg.conf?

 I see the repositories don't have the latest versions, so portupgrade or
 portmaster would be needed to upgrade to the latest versions from ports?
  If so, can one mix and match pkg and portupgrade or portmaster or is that
 asking for trouble?  i.e. use pkg to install packages and portupgrade or
 portmaster to upgrade packages.


 Stan






The above links are NOT containing  new pkgng kind packages yet .

For pkgng compatible packages , you may see the following pages :

http://www.exonetric.com/
http://mirror.exonetric.net/pub/pkgng/
http://mirror.exonetric.net/pub/pkgng/freebsd%3A10%3Ax86%3A64/2013-02-09/All/



Thank you very much .

Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Ports or packages?

[Janky Jay]

Hello,

On 08/11/2013 06:24 PM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
 On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Stan Gammons s_gamm...@charter.net wrote:
 

 On Aug 11, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk 
 m.e.sanlit...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Stan Gammons s_gamm...@charter.net
 wrote:

 I know the binary packages were taken down after the security incident a
 while back. Are many/any binary packages available now or does one still
 have to build most everything from ports?  If binary packages are
 available
 now, what is the URL to the repository?

 Stan
 ___
 http://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html

 ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
 ftp://ftp1.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
 ftp://ftp2.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/



 Assuming one has converted to the new packagement tool and added
 WITH_PKGNG=yes to /etc/make.conf, one could use the links for packagesite
 in pkg.conf to install binary packages with pkg?  Can one have multiple
 packagesite statements in pkg.conf?

 I see the repositories don't have the latest versions, so portupgrade or
 portmaster would be needed to upgrade to the latest versions from ports?
  If so, can one mix and match pkg and portupgrade or portmaster or is that
 asking for trouble?  i.e. use pkg to install packages and portupgrade or
 portmaster to upgrade packages.


 Stan





 
 The above links are NOT containing  new pkgng kind packages yet .
 
 For pkgng compatible packages , you may see the following pages :
 
 http://www.exonetric.com/
 http://mirror.exonetric.net/pub/pkgng/
 http://mirror.exonetric.net/pub/pkgng/freebsd%3A10%3Ax86%3A64/2013-02-09/All/
 
 
 
 Thank you very much .
 
 Mehmet Erol Sanliturk

I +1 this. Also, regarding your question about mixing packages (PNGNG)
and ports is just fine. I use PKGNG and portmaster all the time and they
work fine together. I can't speak for portupgrade, though.

Regards,
Janky Jay, III

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Ports or packages?

[Anton Afanasyev]

Speaking of using portmaster with PKGNG, any idea if PKGNG support for the
--packages-build portmaster option is in the works somewhere? I couldn't
find anything, but maybe I didn't look hard enough.

Thanks,
Anton


On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Janky Jay jan...@unfs.us wrote:

 Hello,

 On 08/11/2013 06:24 PM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
  On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Stan Gammons s_gamm...@charter.net
 wrote:
 
 
  On Aug 11, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk 
  m.e.sanlit...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Stan Gammons s_gamm...@charter.net
  wrote:
 
  I know the binary packages were taken down after the security
 incident a
  while back. Are many/any binary packages available now or does one
 still
  have to build most everything from ports?  If binary packages are
  available
  now, what is the URL to the repository?
 
  Stan
  ___
  http://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html
 
  ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
  ftp://ftp1.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
  ftp://ftp2.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/
 
 
 
  Assuming one has converted to the new packagement tool and added
  WITH_PKGNG=yes to /etc/make.conf, one could use the links for
 packagesite
  in pkg.conf to install binary packages with pkg?  Can one have multiple
  packagesite statements in pkg.conf?
 
  I see the repositories don't have the latest versions, so portupgrade or
  portmaster would be needed to upgrade to the latest versions from ports?
   If so, can one mix and match pkg and portupgrade or portmaster or is
 that
  asking for trouble?  i.e. use pkg to install packages and portupgrade or
  portmaster to upgrade packages.
 
 
  Stan
 
 
 
 
 
 
  The above links are NOT containing  new pkgng kind packages yet .
 
  For pkgng compatible packages , you may see the following pages :
 
  http://www.exonetric.com/
  http://mirror.exonetric.net/pub/pkgng/
 
 http://mirror.exonetric.net/pub/pkgng/freebsd%3A10%3Ax86%3A64/2013-02-09/All/
 
 
 
  Thank you very much .
 
  Mehmet Erol Sanliturk

 I +1 this. Also, regarding your question about mixing packages
 (PNGNG)
 and ports is just fine. I use PKGNG and portmaster all the time and they
 work fine together. I can't speak for portupgrade, though.

 Regards,
 Janky Jay, III

 ___
 freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Ports to packages question

[David Southwell]

Hi

On a system with a large number of ports installed and where some have 
been installed from binaries and some compiled what is the neatest way 
to remove the binary packages and replace them with local compilations.


Thanks in advance
David

--
David Southwell ARPS AFIAP
Photographic Arts
Trained  experienced competition judge, mentor, trainer, lecturer,
Advanced digital techniques, international project photography

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Ports to packages question

[Daniel Nebdal]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM, David Southwell da...@vizion2000.net wrote:
 Hi

 On a system with a large number of ports installed and where some have been
 installed from binaries and some compiled what is the neatest way to remove
 the binary packages and replace them with local compilations.

 Thanks in advance
 David

 --
 David Southwell ARPS AFIAP
 Photographic Arts
 Trained  experienced competition judge, mentor, trainer, lecturer,
 Advanced digital techniques, international project photography

 ___
 freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


It might actually be to get a list of all installed packages,
deinstall everything, and then use portmaster to reinstall them.
Alternatively, you could use poudriere to build packages of everything
first, and then deinstall everything / reinstall from those locally
built packages. (I believe you need a ZFS pool for poudriere, though?)

The poudriere solution has the benefit that you can wait until you're
sure everything has compiled successfully before doing anything
dramatic, while still being sure everything really did get reinstalled
cleanly.


Exactly how to do the above depends - are you currently using pkgng?

--
Daniel Nebdal
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: ports vs packages

[Chuck Swiger]

On Jan 9, 2012, at 2:00 PM, alexus wrote:
 One of the things I'm seeing is that unfortunately packages are
 somewhat limited vs ports...

Packages come precompiled with default options.  For people who want 
non-default options, you would need to build your own package from ports rather 
than using the precompiled one.

 For example:
 
 I'm trying to get Apache httpd + PHP to work, after pkg_add -r php5,
 php5 doesn't have libphp5.so that links Apache and PHP together... so
 unless I'm doing something entirely wrong I basically must use ports
 and nothing else to get the functionality i need...

You can use ports and packages together just fine.  In particular, you ought to 
be able to use the Apache-2.x package with a php5 port that you build to enable 
mod_php.

Regards,
-- 
-Chuck

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

[Norberto Meijome]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
Kurt Abahar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Side note: I'm asking because I would definitely be
 willing to contribute since this would make using
 ports and packages together much easier. 

I think the issue is one of building tens of thousands of applications and 
ensuring they are valid. the process exists already in the ports build farm 
(not sure what it is really called), but as you can see it lags behind 
individual ports updates.

Anyway, as Chuck said , you can't always use a binary pkg as they may not suit 
your needs.

 I also think
 that such a configuration would be a better default
 for portsnap.

Portsnap's functionaty is to update the ports tree, not the binary packages. I 
am not sure you'd want to have a 'pkgsnap' in all your machines.. that would 
effectively mean you are providing a mirror for all built packages...

B

_
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome

The freethinking of one age is the common sense of the next.
   Matthew Arnold

I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet. 
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been 
Warned.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

[Matthew Seaman]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Thierry Thomas wrote:
 Le Ven 27 jul 07 à  3:44:32 +0200, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  écrivait :
 Kurt Abahar wrote:
 
 I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of
 time to compile them. Therefore, I'm trying to use
 packages as much as possible. After updating the ports
 tree using portsnap, portupgrade looks for packages
 that don't exist yet. Basically, my goal is to avoid
 this and have the ports tree update to a state for
 which packages have already been built.
 Ok, that's what I was afraid you were asking for. No such facility
 exists, and I don't imagine anyone creating one any time soon because
 it would be VERY hard to accomplish for a large number of reasons.
 
 Michel Talon's pkgupgrade attempt to solve this problem: see
 http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~talon/freebsdports.html#htoc19.

Would it be feasible to use CVS tags to mark the state of the ports
tree whenever a package is successfully rebuilt by the cluster and
pushed out to the FTP servers?  Something like

 'PKGBUILD_I386'

(similarly for other architectures) -- applied to each port to mark
a successful pkg build, and generally to everything else
(/usr/ports/Mk/*, etc) at the start of any package building run.
Then cvs, csup and cvsup users at least have a fairly simple way to
check out a ports tree that matches what's available in pkg form on
the FTP servers.

Cheers,

Matthew

- --
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   7 Priory Courtyard
  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
  Kent, CT11 9PW
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGqZYN8Mjk52CukIwRCLCMAJ9PkX+1Qb5LBklKrcEyXWeoeaDt5gCgjM0g
cJHPk9g1qia3QeWemC9zRFo=
=FFHZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2007-Jul-27 07:51:57 +0100, Matthew Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be feasible to use CVS tags to mark the state of the ports
tree whenever a package is successfully rebuilt by the cluster and
pushed out to the FTP servers?

This would generate an immense amount of CVS repo churn and I'm not
certain it would actually solve the problem.  Keep in mind that it's
not one tag per architecture but one tag per architecture per FreeBSD
version (this is about 20 variants).

Then cvs, csup and cvsup users at least have a fairly simple way to
check out a ports tree that matches what's available in pkg form on
the FTP servers.

I believe the problem is more that there's a noticable delay between a
port being updated and a matching set of packages being available.
Even if you added a tag slip whenever a package was successfully built
on each platform, there are still differential delays between the
tagged ports tree being available from the varions CVSup/CTM servers
and the packages being available from the FTP mirrors.

I suspect you would also need an INDEX built to that tag - which means
about 20 INDEX files instead of 3.

-- 
Peter Jeremy


pgp692VrrJpKO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

[Norberto Meijome]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:07:25 +1000
Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I believe the problem is more that there's a noticable delay between a
 port being updated and a matching set of packages being available.

At least for me, it hardly ever is an actual problem. I mean, building ports 
from source can't be much easier (if some kinks are not left in the system, it 
wouldn't be fun to use ;) ).

I know that not everyone has fast machines to build larger ports from source 
(although pretty much any machine built over the last 6 years would do just 
fine)... but it seems to me the ones who are facing some actual problems are 
those with much older machines that, for some reason, have to keep every single 
port up to date. Which is a much more reduce set than 'everyone' :)

for what is worth, if anyone wants a package and I have it handy on any of my 
machines , drop me a line and I'll send it your way - you will have to trust of 
course the binary files coming from me instead of waiting for the official, 
reliable one from freebsd.org  but hey, if you are in a rush and can't be 
bothered building from src ... ;)

regards,
B
_
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome

Produce great people, the rest will follow.
  Elbert Hubbard

I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet. 
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been 
Warned.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

[Kurt Abahar]

--- Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Jul 26, 2007, at 4:14 PM, Kurt Abahar wrote:
  I'm trying to find a way to keep the ports tree
  synchronized with that from which the latest
 packages
  in packages-6-stable were built.
 
  Is there a way to accomplish this?
 
 Sure, you probably want something like portupgrade
 -P or  
 portupgrade -PP options.  Note that if you have
 reason to select  
 non-default options, you're better off building the
 ports locally to  
 suit your preferences...
 
 -- 
 -Chuck
 
 

Thank you for the quick response.

I have tried the portupgrade way, but unfortunately
the packages lag behind ports the majority of the
time. This led me to think that keeping the ports tree
a little behind HEAD would be a better solution.
However, I don't know how to get a hold of this lag
time. Is it a few days, a few weeks or ... ?

Perhaps there is a better way?


   

Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the 
tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

[Kurt Abahar]

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to find a way to keep the ports tree
synchronized with that from which the latest packages
in packages-6-stable were built.

Is there a way to accomplish this?

Thank you


   

Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. 
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545469
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

[Doug Barton]

Kurt Abahar wrote:
 --- Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Maybe you can describe in more detail what you're
 trying to
 accomplish. Leave out potential solutions, just
 describe what your
 goal is.
 
 I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of
 time to compile them. Therefore, I'm trying to use
 packages as much as possible. After updating the ports
 tree using portsnap, portupgrade looks for packages
 that don't exist yet. Basically, my goal is to avoid
 this and have the ports tree update to a state for
 which packages have already been built.

Ok, that's what I was afraid you were asking for. No such facility
exists, and I don't imagine anyone creating one any time soon because
it would be VERY hard to accomplish for a large number of reasons.

 I apologize if I can't explain it very clearly,
 English isn't my native language.

Your description was perfect, it was my understanding of it that
needed help. :)


Regards,

Doug

-- 

This .signature sanitized for your protection

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

[Doug Barton]

Kurt Abahar wrote:

 I have tried the portupgrade way, but unfortunately
 the packages lag behind ports the majority of the
 time.

It's actually 100% of the time, and always will be.

 This led me to think that keeping the ports tree
 a little behind HEAD would be a better solution.
 However, I don't know how to get a hold of this lag
 time. Is it a few days, a few weeks or ... ?

Maybe you can describe in more detail what you're trying to
accomplish. Leave out potential solutions, just describe what your
goal is.

hth,

Doug

-- 

This .signature sanitized for your protection
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

[Chuck Swiger]

On Jul 26, 2007, at 4:14 PM, Kurt Abahar wrote:

I'm trying to find a way to keep the ports tree
synchronized with that from which the latest packages
in packages-6-stable were built.

Is there a way to accomplish this?


Sure, you probably want something like portupgrade -P or  
portupgrade -PP options.  Note that if you have reason to select  
non-default options, you're better off building the ports locally to  
suit your preferences...


--
-Chuck

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

[Kurt Abahar]

--- Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 No such facility
 exists, and I don't imagine anyone creating one any
 time soon because
 it would be VERY hard to accomplish for a large
 number of reasons.

If you don't mind, could you please elaborate on this?

Side note: I'm asking because I would definitely be
willing to contribute since this would make using
ports and packages together much easier. I also think
that such a configuration would be a better default
for portsnap.

Thank you


   

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play 
Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/  
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

[Kurt Abahar]

--- Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Maybe you can describe in more detail what you're
 trying to
 accomplish. Leave out potential solutions, just
 describe what your
 goal is.

I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of
time to compile them. Therefore, I'm trying to use
packages as much as possible. After updating the ports
tree using portsnap, portupgrade looks for packages
that don't exist yet. Basically, my goal is to avoid
this and have the ports tree update to a state for
which packages have already been built.

I apologize if I can't explain it very clearly,
English isn't my native language.

Thank you



   

Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search 
that gives answers, not web links. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

[Thierry Thomas]

Le Ven 27 jul 07 à  3:44:32 +0200, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 écrivait :
 Kurt Abahar wrote:

  I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of
  time to compile them. Therefore, I'm trying to use
  packages as much as possible. After updating the ports
  tree using portsnap, portupgrade looks for packages
  that don't exist yet. Basically, my goal is to avoid
  this and have the ports tree update to a state for
  which packages have already been built.
 
 Ok, that's what I was afraid you were asking for. No such facility
 exists, and I don't imagine anyone creating one any time soon because
 it would be VERY hard to accomplish for a large number of reasons.

Michel Talon's pkgupgrade attempt to solve this problem: see
http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~talon/freebsdports.html#htoc19.

Regards,
-- 
Th. Thomas.


pgpfr6h9Ho93h.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Keeping ports and packages synchronized

[Kurt Abahar]

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to find a way to keep the ports tree
synchronized with the latest packages in order to
minimize version mismatches and to allow easy mixing
between them. So far I've been using a hack that does
a listing of the packages-6-stable directory on the
freebsd ftp, and uses the mtime of the most recent
file (excluding CHECKSUM.MD5) for doing a csup
checkout. Unfortunately, this seems to work seldomly.

Is anyone aware of a better way to accomplish this?

Thank you


   

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play 
Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/  
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]