Re: Poudriere building far more ports than it should
First of all, big thanks to everyone who tried to help! Mostly asking to make sure if this is something to be expected, glitch in some ports or possibly a bug. I think Poudriere pulls in all the possible dependencies, just in case and compiles them as well, just in case. Now I've done some installs etc, I'm just going to blacklist the unnecessary ports which aren't used or linked, in order to make the Poudriere build process meaner and leaner. -Reko ___ 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: Poudriere building far more ports than it should
-Original Message- From: AlexandreC. Guimarães Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:26 PM Do you mean the OPTIONS you previously set were not honoured by poudriere? Just in case, poudriere does not `read` OPTIONS and/or other things like make.conf from the default location but from /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/* Yes, I copied over my make.conf, my src.conf and then /var/db/ports/ to options. And as I said in previous then douplechecked with "poudriere options -c..." What I can understand is that poudriere brought for example every single Imagick dependency, even if I just use a selected few. Of course if everything is as intended and the packages install without any extra dependencies I don't need, I'm happy. Just haven't got time yet to check if the packages I've built "behave", been too busy rebuilding my home firewall/gateway to incorporate the delivery of the packages to intended targets :) Mostly asking to make sure if this is something to be expected, glitch in some ports or possibly a bug. -Reko ___ 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: Poudriere building far more ports than it should
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 08:57:59PM +0200, Reko Turja via freebsd-ports wrote: > Hello! > > -Original Message- From: Dmytro Bilokha > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 03:33:38AM +0200, reko.turja--- via freebsd-ports > wrote: > > > > I finally took the hurdle and made a poudriere VM for building my ports > > > instead of building them on target system. At first I did however build > > > every single port I will need on the VM resulting on 240 or so ports. > > > > > > Then I copied over my options, and the list of installed ports etc. and > > > started the build. For some reason poudriere wants to build a ton of > > > extra > > > baggage (360+ ports instead of 240.) > > > > Hello, Reko! > > > Poudriere builds different kinds of ports: > > > 1. Ports from your list. > > 2. Run-time dependencies of ports from your list. 3. Build-time > > dependecies of ports from your list. > < 4. Run-time and build-time dependencies of your ports dependencies, as > well > > That all I know - Ive been using ports and only ports since early 2000's. So > the problem is that I made a dry run from ports, linking only to stuff that > I wanted on the final package receiver. Then I copied the list of ports over > to poudriere using portversion -oQ. When I started the run, there was > suddenly every single dependency I previously dropped brought in. (I know > about automake, autoconf and similar build dependencies.) > > I guess one option would be blacklisting in poudriere those unneeded > dependencies which shouldn't be linked with my packages, if my options are > honoured by poudriere. Do you mean the OPTIONS you previously set were not honoured by poudriere? Just in case, poudriere does not `read` OPTIONS and/or other things like make.conf from the default location but from /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/* Cheers! > > -Reko > > ___ > 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" -- Best Regards, Alexandre C. Guimarães. https://bitbucket.org/rigoletto-freebsd/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Poudriere building far more ports than it should
-Original Message- From: Matthias Fechner Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:10 PM Am 14.11.2018 um 19:57 schrieb Reko Turja via freebsd-ports: I guess one option would be blacklisting in poudriere those unneeded dependencies which shouldn't be linked with my packages, if my options are honoured by poudriere. have you made your options (maybe they are located on /var/db/ports) available to poudriere? < (normally poudriere searches them in /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/options) Yes I have andd after noticing the huge increase in ports to be build, doublechecked that my options had really transferred over using poudriere options -c -j -f instead of -C... -Reko ___ 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: Poudriere building far more ports than it should
Am 14.11.2018 um 19:57 schrieb Reko Turja via freebsd-ports: > I guess one option would be blacklisting in poudriere those unneeded > dependencies which shouldn't be linked with my packages, if my options > are honoured by poudriere. have you made your options (maybe they are located on /var/db/ports) available to poudriere? (normally poudriere searches them in /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/options) Gruß Matthias -- "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." -- Rich Cook ___ 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: Poudriere building far more ports than it should
Hello! -Original Message- From: Dmytro Bilokha On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 03:33:38AM +0200, reko.turja--- via freebsd-ports wrote: I finally took the hurdle and made a poudriere VM for building my ports instead of building them on target system. At first I did however build every single port I will need on the VM resulting on 240 or so ports. Then I copied over my options, and the list of installed ports etc. and started the build. For some reason poudriere wants to build a ton of extra baggage (360+ ports instead of 240.) Hello, Reko! Poudriere builds different kinds of ports: 1. Ports from your list. 2. Run-time dependencies of ports from your list. 3. Build-time dependecies of ports from your list. < 4. Run-time and build-time dependencies of your ports dependencies, as well That all I know - Ive been using ports and only ports since early 2000's. So the problem is that I made a dry run from ports, linking only to stuff that I wanted on the final package receiver. Then I copied the list of ports over to poudriere using portversion -oQ. When I started the run, there was suddenly every single dependency I previously dropped brought in. (I know about automake, autoconf and similar build dependencies.) I guess one option would be blacklisting in poudriere those unneeded dependencies which shouldn't be linked with my packages, if my options are honoured by poudriere. -Reko ___ 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: Poudriere building far more ports than it should
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 03:33:38AM +0200, reko.turja--- via freebsd-ports wrote: Hello list! I finally took the hurdle and made a poudriere VM for building my ports instead of building them on target system. At first I did however build every single port I will need on the VM resulting on 240 or so ports. Then I copied over my options, and the list of installed ports etc. and started the build. For some reason poudriere wants to build a ton of extra baggage (360+ ports instead of 240.) Is this expected and will the packages once built be without any extra cruft? -Reko Hello, Reko! Poudriere builds different kinds of ports: 1. Ports from your list. That is what you really want to be use. 2. Run-time dependencies of ports from your list. To work properly, some of your ports require another ports. As an example, the CURL web utility requires libssh2 library, etc. 3. Build-time dependecies of ports from your list. Example: if your port is C++ language program, for the port to be built it requires C compiler. 4. Run-time and build-time dependencies of your ports dependencies, as well as their dependencies... Run and build time dependencies of your ports (p.2 and p.3) are also ports which can have their own dependencies. All of these also should be built. That is why you see in the pourdiere to-do list more ports than you've requested. At the end, when all the package have been built you will proceed with installation of your wanted packages (p.1) with them the package manager will automatically install their run-time dependencies and run-time dependecies of these dependencies and so on and so forth. The build-time dependencies won't be installed, because they are not required for your ports to be run. -- Dmytro Bilokha dmy...@posteo.net ___ 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"
Poudriere building far more ports than it should
Hello list! I finally took the hurdle and made a poudriere VM for building my ports instead of building them on target system. At first I did however build every single port I will need on the VM resulting on 240 or so ports. Then I copied over my options, and the list of installed ports etc. and started the build. For some reason poudriere wants to build a ton of extra baggage (360+ ports instead of 240.) Is this expected and will the packages once built be without any extra cruft? -Reko ___ 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"
poudriere building for .
Hello, I have a quick question about poudriere and building for HEAD (AKA . AKA 10.0-CURRENT). When I created my buildjail, I used . to specify version and method csup. The funny thing is that now I get (please note . instead of 10.0): checking build system type... i386-portbld-freebsd. checking host system type... i386-portbld-freebsd. in all package builds. Most of packages do not dislike this, but there is at least one, which does - namely lsof - it fails to detect FreeBSD version. Could you please advise a solution for this? Thanks in advance! -- Alexandr Kovalenko http://uafug.org.ua/ ___ 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: poudriere building for .
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 07:48:37PM +0300, Alexandr Kovalenko wrote: Hello, I have a quick question about poudriere and building for HEAD (AKA . AKA 10.0-CURRENT). When I created my buildjail, I used . to specify version and method csup. The funny thing is that now I get (please note . instead of 10.0): checking build system type... i386-portbld-freebsd. checking host system type... i386-portbld-freebsd. in all package builds. Most of packages do not dislike this, but there is at least one, which does - namely lsof - it fails to detect FreeBSD version. Could you please advise a solution for this? This should normally have been fixed in 2.0 and -devel, but it would needs you to destroy/recreate your jail. Can you tell me which version of poudriere you were using when creating your jail? Another way and simpler way to deal with package building on HEAD, is to use the new allbsd method, which will fetch the latest current sets build by allbsd.org people. regards, Bapt pgpU1gthMKEQc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: poudriere building for .
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote: On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 07:48:37PM +0300, Alexandr Kovalenko wrote: I have a quick question about poudriere and building for HEAD (AKA . AKA 10.0-CURRENT). When I created my buildjail, I used . to specify version and method csup. The funny thing is that now I get (please note . instead of 10.0): checking build system type... i386-portbld-freebsd. checking host system type... i386-portbld-freebsd. in all package builds. Most of packages do not dislike this, but there is at least one, which does - namely lsof - it fails to detect FreeBSD version. Could you please advise a solution for this? This should normally have been fixed in 2.0 and -devel, but it would needs you to destroy/recreate your jail. Can you tell me which version of poudriere you were using when creating your jail? poudriere-1.5.4_1 Port build and test system Another way and simpler way to deal with package building on HEAD, is to use the new allbsd method, which will fetch the latest current sets build by allbsd.org people. Not quite sure I understand what you are talking about, could you, please, be more precise? :) -- Alexandr Kovalenko ___ 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: poudriere building for .
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 11:25:01PM +0300, Alexandr Kovalenko wrote: On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote: On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 07:48:37PM +0300, Alexandr Kovalenko wrote: I have a quick question about poudriere and building for HEAD (AKA . AKA 10.0-CURRENT). When I created my buildjail, I used . to specify version and method csup. The funny thing is that now I get (please note . instead of 10.0): checking build system type... i386-portbld-freebsd. checking host system type... i386-portbld-freebsd. in all package builds. Most of packages do not dislike this, but there is at least one, which does - namely lsof - it fails to detect FreeBSD version. Could you please advise a solution for this? This should normally have been fixed in 2.0 and -devel, but it would needs you to destroy/recreate your jail. Can you tell me which version of poudriere you were using when creating your jail? poudriere-1.5.4_1 Port build and test system Using poudriere 2.0 should help on this :) (but need destroy/create the jail) Another way and simpler way to deal with package building on HEAD, is to use the new allbsd method, which will fetch the latest current sets build by allbsd.org people. Not quite sure I understand what you are talking about, could you, please, be more precise? :) https://www.allbsd.org/ is providing recent snapshots sets, in 2.0 we provide a method called allbsd which will feth the prebuilt sets from allbsd (including for head) which will allow you to have a 10.0 jail without compiling :) regards, Bapt pgp6SCmWqJohY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: poudriere building for .
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote: On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 11:25:01PM +0300, Alexandr Kovalenko wrote: On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote: On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 07:48:37PM +0300, Alexandr Kovalenko wrote: I have a quick question about poudriere and building for HEAD (AKA . AKA 10.0-CURRENT). When I created my buildjail, I used . to specify version and method csup. The funny thing is that now I get (please note . instead of 10.0): checking build system type... i386-portbld-freebsd. checking host system type... i386-portbld-freebsd. in all package builds. Most of packages do not dislike this, but there is at least one, which does - namely lsof - it fails to detect FreeBSD version. Could you please advise a solution for this? This should normally have been fixed in 2.0 and -devel, but it would needs you to destroy/recreate your jail. Can you tell me which version of poudriere you were using when creating your jail? poudriere-1.5.4_1 Port build and test system Using poudriere 2.0 should help on this :) (but need destroy/create the jail) Another way and simpler way to deal with package building on HEAD, is to use the new allbsd method, which will fetch the latest current sets build by allbsd.org people. Not quite sure I understand what you are talking about, could you, please, be more precise? :) https://www.allbsd.org/ is providing recent snapshots sets, in 2.0 we provide a method called allbsd which will feth the prebuilt sets from allbsd (including for head) which will allow you to have a 10.0 jail without compiling :) One of the ugliest web pages I've seen in a long time! Great tool! (I never much cared about eye candy.) I hope this gets more publicity as it looks extremely useful, though I need to look into security issues a bit. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6...@gmail.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
