Re: portmaster comments
on 14/03/2011 02:45 Doug Barton said the following: > BTW, the reason I'm not amenable to your suggestion in 2 is that only a few > developer-types actually care about this, and that doesn't justify the code > complexity. Just be thankful I didn't go with my first instinct, which was to > 'rm > -rf $WRKDIRPREFIX' :) I still think that this feature is implemented incorrectly. First, it's silent - it's not documented or advertised in run-time (e.g. "now cleaning..."). Second, there is no way to turn it off. Third, I think it's kind of useless as is, because a person intelligent enough to use portmaster should also know how to clean his/her WRKDIRPREFIX should it somehow grow. Perhaps you have added this feature for your own benefit, but the way you did that you tried to force your habits on other people, IMO. Well, I know how to alter my local copy of portmaster and you are its author and maintainer, so I have nothing else to add :) -- Andriy Gapon ___ 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"
site-packages upgrades (was: portmaster comments)
Am 14.03.2011 14:19, schrieb Wesley Shields: This doesn't have any effect for, /usr/ports/lang/python/Makefile:31:.if defined(USE_PORTMASTER) Does it ? It has an effect on how the upgrade-site-packages target works. I wrote it specifically because I didn't want to have to install portupgrade just to get the upgrade-site-packages target to work. Oh, if I may add a shameless plug here, I'd like to advertise ports-mgmt/pkgs_which that I've written partially out of the same motivation (get upgrade-site-packages targets working without portupgrade or pkg_which) and efficiently. Basically you can do pkgs_which -qo /usr/local/lib/python2.6 to get a list of packages that need upgrading (takes < 10 s for a dual-core energy-efficient 2 GHz-class computer with somewhat slow disks and UFS) or portmaster -d $(pkgs_which -qo /usr/local/lib/python2.6) to upgrade them all. Yeah, this code should've been written much sooner, and I've been having this idea for a while, but now it's there. I think you might be confusing two different issues. The USE_PORTMASTER knob was put in place specifically for the upgrade-site-packages target, which is not something called during the normal build process by any upgrading tool. I'm not sure how using UPGRADE_TOOL will help this at all. Possibly not at all -- it would possibly be more useful to standardize these "post-upgrade" jobs. One "post-install" for the regular stuff, and one "post-nontrivial-upgrade" (for want of a better name) for the 2.6->2.7 or Perl 5.10->5.12 migration pains. -- Matthias Andree ports committer ___ 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: portmaster comments
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:08:26AM -0400, J. Hellenthal wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:45, dougb@ wrote:
> > On 3/13/2011 5:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >> Hi Doug,
> >>
> >> I'd like to raise a couple of nits with portmaster (primarily a wish
> >> for more configurability):
> >>
> >> 1) In v3.0, you added code to nice(1) all make(1) invocations. In some
> >> cases, the default niceness does not suit me (in particular, I'd often
> >> prefer '0' to '10'). Would it be possible to add an option to control
> >> the priority?
> >>
> >> 2) In v3.6, you added a "find $WRKDIRPREFIX ..." to the cleanup. For
> >> various reasons, I have _lots_ of unrelated stuff under that tree and
> >> so the find(1) takes an unacceptably long time to run. It would be
> >> nice to restrict that search to $WRKDIRPREFIX${.CURDIR} and have an
> >> option to disable it completely.
> >
> > Neither is likely to happen. :) I may however remove 1, it didn't really
> > help much, if at all. As for 2, my suggestion is to have a WRKDIRPREFIX for
> > development stuff, and a different one for portmaster. It's pretty easy to
> > do
> > with a make.conf knob searching for whether UPGRADE_TOOL is set to
>
> This doesn't have any effect for,
> /usr/ports/lang/python/Makefile:31:.if defined(USE_PORTMASTER)
>
> Does it ?
It has an effect on how the upgrade-site-packages target works. I wrote
it specifically because I didn't want to have to install portupgrade
just to get the upgrade-site-packages target to work.
> It would be real nice if these things were somewhat in sync for their
> intended use.
I don't know what you mean by this.
> Ill BCC python@ for the heads up on ``UPGRADE_TOOL'' I would prefer this
> personally over USE_ vars. But is this common among portupgrade and
> portmaster ? If not can something be done in tree to decipher it into what
> is supposed to be set to avoid confusion ?
I don't know what you mean by this.
I think you might be confusing two different issues. The USE_PORTMASTER
knob was put in place specifically for the upgrade-site-packages target,
which is not something called during the normal build process by any
upgrading tool. I'm not sure how using UPGRADE_TOOL will help this at
all.
-- WXS
___
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: portmaster comments
Am 14.03.2011 01:45, schrieb Doug Barton:
On 3/13/2011 5:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Hi Doug,
I'd like to raise a couple of nits with portmaster (primarily a wish
for more configurability):
1) In v3.0, you added code to nice(1) all make(1) invocations. In some
cases, the default niceness does not suit me (in particular, I'd often
prefer '0' to '10'). Would it be possible to add an option to control
the priority?
2) In v3.6, you added a "find $WRKDIRPREFIX ..." to the cleanup. For
various reasons, I have _lots_ of unrelated stuff under that tree and
so the find(1) takes an unacceptably long time to run. It would be
nice to restrict that search to $WRKDIRPREFIX${.CURDIR} and have an
option to disable it completely.
Neither is likely to happen. :) I may however remove 1, it didn't really
help much, if at all. As for 2, my suggestion is to have a WRKDIRPREFIX
for development stuff, and a different one for portmaster. It's pretty
easy to do with a make.conf knob searching for whether UPGRADE_TOOL is
set to "portmaster." I have such a thing which I can send you if you
really need me to, but I'm not booted into FreeBSD right now so I don't
have it close to hand.
BTW, the reason I'm not amenable to your suggestion in 2 is that only a
few developer-types actually care about this, and that doesn't justify
the code complexity. Just be thankful I didn't go with my first
instinct, which was to 'rm -rf $WRKDIRPREFIX' :)
Hi Doug,
as to the 2nd issue:
What's the issue with $WRKDIRPREFIX${.CURDIR}? Or possibly, if you need
wider coverage, $WRKDIRPREFIX$PORTSDIR? The latter is, however, harmful
if multiple processes run in parallel, but I haven't checked lately if
portmaster sets locks to avoid that situation.
Best
--
Matthias Andree
ports committer
___
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: portmaster comments
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:45, dougb@ wrote:
On 3/13/2011 5:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Hi Doug,
I'd like to raise a couple of nits with portmaster (primarily a wish
for more configurability):
1) In v3.0, you added code to nice(1) all make(1) invocations. In some
cases, the default niceness does not suit me (in particular, I'd often
prefer '0' to '10'). Would it be possible to add an option to control
the priority?
2) In v3.6, you added a "find $WRKDIRPREFIX ..." to the cleanup. For
various reasons, I have _lots_ of unrelated stuff under that tree and
so the find(1) takes an unacceptably long time to run. It would be
nice to restrict that search to $WRKDIRPREFIX${.CURDIR} and have an
option to disable it completely.
Neither is likely to happen. :) I may however remove 1, it didn't really
help much, if at all. As for 2, my suggestion is to have a WRKDIRPREFIX for
development stuff, and a different one for portmaster. It's pretty easy to do
with a make.conf knob searching for whether UPGRADE_TOOL is set to
This doesn't have any effect for,
/usr/ports/lang/python/Makefile:31:.if defined(USE_PORTMASTER)
Does it ?
It would be real nice if these things were somewhat in sync for their
intended use.
Ill BCC python@ for the heads up on ``UPGRADE_TOOL'' I would prefer this
personally over USE_ vars. But is this common among portupgrade and
portmaster ? If not can something be done in tree to decipher it into what
is supposed to be set to avoid confusion ?
"portmaster." I have such a thing which I can send you if you really need me
to, but I'm not booted into FreeBSD right now so I don't have it close to
hand.
--
Regards,
J. Hellenthal
(0x89D8547E)
JJH48-ARIN
___
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"
portmaster comments
Hi Doug,
I'd like to raise a couple of nits with portmaster (primarily a wish
for more configurability):
1) In v3.0, you added code to nice(1) all make(1) invocations. In some
cases, the default niceness does not suit me (in particular, I'd often
prefer '0' to '10'). Would it be possible to add an option to control
the priority?
2) In v3.6, you added a "find $WRKDIRPREFIX ..." to the cleanup. For
various reasons, I have _lots_ of unrelated stuff under that tree and
so the find(1) takes an unacceptably long time to run. It would be
nice to restrict that search to $WRKDIRPREFIX${.CURDIR} and have an
option to disable it completely.
--
Peter Jeremy
pgpLZJMbNTuMT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: portmaster comments
On 3/13/2011 5:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Hi Doug,
I'd like to raise a couple of nits with portmaster (primarily a wish
for more configurability):
1) In v3.0, you added code to nice(1) all make(1) invocations. In some
cases, the default niceness does not suit me (in particular, I'd often
prefer '0' to '10'). Would it be possible to add an option to control
the priority?
2) In v3.6, you added a "find $WRKDIRPREFIX ..." to the cleanup. For
various reasons, I have _lots_ of unrelated stuff under that tree and
so the find(1) takes an unacceptably long time to run. It would be
nice to restrict that search to $WRKDIRPREFIX${.CURDIR} and have an
option to disable it completely.
Neither is likely to happen. :) I may however remove 1, it didn't
really help much, if at all. As for 2, my suggestion is to have a
WRKDIRPREFIX for development stuff, and a different one for portmaster.
It's pretty easy to do with a make.conf knob searching for whether
UPGRADE_TOOL is set to "portmaster." I have such a thing which I can
send you if you really need me to, but I'm not booted into FreeBSD right
now so I don't have it close to hand.
BTW, the reason I'm not amenable to your suggestion in 2 is that only a
few developer-types actually care about this, and that doesn't justify
the code complexity. Just be thankful I didn't go with my first
instinct, which was to 'rm -rf $WRKDIRPREFIX' :)
hth,
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
___
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"
