Re: Determining what a port will install... (more than pretty-print-*) [Soln]
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:19:03AM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote: Csaba Henk wrote: Because all such scripts are fundamentally broken. When make decides which ports to pull in, it doesn't only use the flat data of build and run dependencies, but uses its full Turing complete computing power. Eg., what happens when a port needs a postscript interpreter? Then do the pretty-print(s) not provide the useful information they appear to? I mean, If the above were true then they would have no value... and should go away. Or do they provide true but incomplete information? As far as I can see, they tell you the list of packages which would be installed if you were doing the install from scratch (ie., no packages were installed). This is a somewhat useful information, anyway. Btw., is make really Turing complete? As far as I can see, complex tasks are delegated to shell, but I can't recall seeing any while in make code... Should it use the AFPL or the GNU edition as a dependency? Of course, doing a favor toward one of them (and taking away user's choice) is unacceptable. So what happens is that make directly checks whether the gs executable is present. See, for example, print/gv. Your script's output will include ghostscript-gnu-7.07_13 both as a build and a run dependency. Yet when I type make, my ghostscript-gnu-7.07_12 installation will be happily utilized as the following output snippet shows: Is this not acceptable behavior since it is just a port revision? Shouldn't the revision be compatible in every way with the vendor's release? What do you mean by this? The behaviour seen upon installing gv is absolutely what one would expect. It's just hard to make proper predictions. Thanks for contributing to the script. You are welcome. Regards, Csaba ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Determining what a port will install... (more than pretty-print-*) [Soln]
Csaba Henk wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:19:03AM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote: Csaba Henk wrote: Because all such scripts are fundamentally broken. When make decides which ports to pull in, it doesn't only use the flat data of build and run dependencies, but uses its full Turing complete computing power. Eg., what happens when a port needs a postscript interpreter? Then do the pretty-print(s) not provide the useful information they appear to? I mean, If the above were true then they would have no value... and should go away. Or do they provide true but incomplete information? As far as I can see, they tell you the list of packages which would be installed if you were doing the install from scratch (ie., no packages were installed). This is a somewhat useful information, anyway. Btw., is make really Turing complete? As far as I can see, complex tasks are delegated to shell, but I can't recall seeing any while in make code... Should it use the AFPL or the GNU edition as a dependency? Of course, doing a favor toward one of them (and taking away user's choice) is unacceptable. So what happens is that make directly checks whether the gs executable is present. See, for example, print/gv. Your script's output will include ghostscript-gnu-7.07_13 both as a build and a run dependency. Yet when I type make, my ghostscript-gnu-7.07_12 installation will be happily utilized as the following output snippet shows: Is this not acceptable behavior since it is just a port revision? Shouldn't the revision be compatible in every way with the vendor's release? What do you mean by this? The behaviour seen upon installing gv is absolutely what one would expect. It's just hard to make proper predictions. It 'sounded' as if you were stating that it was inappropriate for the 7.07_12 port to be used in place of the 7.07_13 (which was required)... when this seemed correct to me. I'm sure I just misunderstood what you were saying... disregard my comment. Thanks for contributing to the script. You are welcome. Regards, Csaba -- Regards, Eric ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Determining what a port will install... (more than pretty-print-*) [Soln]
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 11:55:28AM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote:
Hello,
Some time back I posted a question regarding how to determine what
ports/packages would need to be installed on my machine when I install a
new (new to the local machine) port.
For example, if I do not presently have openoffice installed... what
will get installed when I 'make install clean' it? Note that I want the
differences between what is needed to build/run the port and what is
already present on the machine.
At the time no one responded with a clear way to do this... so I finally
had a few minutes to write a script to do it for me. I thought someone
else might find it useful... So I'm posting it here for comments and
thoughts (be gentle, I'm new to awk).
Here is an improved/spoiled (decide by yourself) version. I aimed to
sport a more orthogonal design and avoid some gotchas I run into (see
comments in awk code).
#! /bin/sh
# Script to determine the differences between what is necessary for
# a port, and what is already present on the local machine.
awkprgt='{
count = 0
pkgs =
for(i=5; i=NF-2; i++) {
pkg = $i
# the if is here to hack it around when you get:
# This port requires package(s) to build.
if (pkg != \\) {
if (index(pkg, \) == 1)
{pkg = substr(pkg, 2, length(pkg)-1)}
if (index(pkg, \) 1)
{pkg = substr(pkg, 1, length(pkg)-1)}
if ( system(pkg_info -e pkg) == 1) {
pkgs = pkgs pkg
count++
}
}
}
if ( count ) {
print You need the following (%s) perequisites:
print pkgs
}
else {
print All (%s) prerequisites are present.
}
}
END {
# triggered, eg., by audio/artswrapper (on my box, at least)
if( ! FNR) {
print Bogus (empty) %s dependency information
}
}
'
awkit() {
# Resolve %s-s via sed is a blunt hack
# but good enough here and thus we don't have
# to care about the number of occurrences
awk `echo $awkprgt | sed s/%s/$1/g`
}
make pretty-print-build-depends-list | awkit build
make pretty-print-run-depends-list | awkit run
Alas... while I was making these changes, I succeeded to recall why I
abandoned my earlier attempt to put together a script which fulfils this
(highly desired) functionality.
Because all such scripts are fundamentally broken.
When make decides which ports to pull in, it doesn't only use the flat
data of build and run dependencies, but uses its full Turing complete
computing power. Eg., what happens when a port needs a postscript
interpreter? Should it use the AFPL or the GNU edition as a dependency?
Of course, doing a favor toward one of them (and taking away user's
choice) is unacceptable. So what happens is that make directly checks
whether the gs executable is present.
See, for example, print/gv. Your script's output will include
ghostscript-gnu-7.07_13 both as a build and a run dependency.
Yet when I type make, my ghostscript-gnu-7.07_12 installation will
be happily utilized as the following output snippet shows:
= Checksum OK for gv-3.6.1.tar.gz.
=== Patching for gv-3.6.1
=== Applying FreeBSD patches for gv-3.6.1
=== gv-3.6.1 depends on executable: gmake - found
=== gv-3.6.1 depends on executable: gs - found
=== gv-3.6.1 depends on shared library: Xaw3d - found
=== gv-3.6.1 depends on shared library: X11.6 - found
=== Configuring for gv-3.6.1
The approach taken by FreeBSD's ports is to have more flexibility but
less predictability, and now we have to live with it. Maybe the Gentoo
guys are the ones who succeeded to find the proper balance between these
two quantities -- they made up a mini-markup-language for denoting
dependencies, which is clever enough to cover all cases but it's still
just an easy to parse flat data.
One solution for FreeBSD could be digging deep into the make backend of
the ports framework and insert the necessary hooks everywhere to produce
a reliable dry-run.
Or severely refactor the whole ports framework and switch to Gentoo style
dependency handling. This won't happen any soon IMHO as ports API
changes should be pushed through all ports...
(OFF: to have a bit of bitter laugh, I think Gentoo's portage suffers
from a fundamental design flaw: they can't tune installation prefixes
(which would be necessary to make it an acceptable cross platform 3rd
party package manager, akin to pkgsrc, but it would have other uses, too).
This is again such a thing which can be changed only by rewriting all of
their e-builds.)
Regards,
Csaba
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Determining what a port will install... (more than pretty-print-*) [Soln]
Csaba Henk wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 11:55:28AM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote:
Hello,
Some time back I posted a question regarding how to determine what
ports/packages would need to be installed on my machine when I install a
new (new to the local machine) port.
For example, if I do not presently have openoffice installed... what
will get installed when I 'make install clean' it? Note that I want the
differences between what is needed to build/run the port and what is
already present on the machine.
At the time no one responded with a clear way to do this... so I finally
had a few minutes to write a script to do it for me. I thought someone
else might find it useful... So I'm posting it here for comments and
thoughts (be gentle, I'm new to awk).
Here is an improved/spoiled (decide by yourself) version.
Improved.
I aimed to
sport a more orthogonal design and avoid some gotchas I run into (see
comments in awk code).
#! /bin/sh
# Script to determine the differences between what is necessary for
# a port, and what is already present on the local machine.
awkprgt='{
count = 0
pkgs =
for(i=5; i=NF-2; i++) {
pkg = $i
# the if is here to hack it around when you get:
# This port requires package(s) to build.
I never ran into this case.
if (pkg != \\) {
if (index(pkg, \) == 1)
{pkg = substr(pkg, 2, length(pkg)-1)}
if (index(pkg, \) 1)
{pkg = substr(pkg, 1, length(pkg)-1)}
if ( system(pkg_info -e pkg) == 1) {
pkgs = pkgs pkg
count++
}
}
}
if ( count ) {
print You need the following (%s) perequisites:
print pkgs
}
else {
print All (%s) prerequisites are present.
}
}
I did see this on a few ports... but decided to handle it in the same
fashion as `make pretty-print*`, for better or worse. My initial
response was to do as you did (and I believe that IS the right thing)...
but I fell back to what the make target did. But I prefer your soln.
END {
# triggered, eg., by audio/artswrapper (on my box, at least)
if( ! FNR) {
print Bogus (empty) %s dependency information
}
}
'
awkit() {
# Resolve %s-s via sed is a blunt hack
# but good enough here and thus we don't have
# to care about the number of occurrences
awk `echo $awkprgt | sed s/%s/$1/g`
}
make pretty-print-build-depends-list | awkit build
make pretty-print-run-depends-list | awkit run
Alas... while I was making these changes, I succeeded to recall why I
abandoned my earlier attempt to put together a script which fulfils this
(highly desired) functionality.
I highly desire this too... but my initial post (some months ago)
received less attention than I expected. I find this functionality very
useful, and was surprised solution didn't already exist.
Because all such scripts are fundamentally broken.
When make decides which ports to pull in, it doesn't only use the flat
data of build and run dependencies, but uses its full Turing complete
computing power. Eg., what happens when a port needs a postscript
interpreter?
Then do the pretty-print(s) not provide the useful information they
appear to? I mean, If the above were true then they would have no
value... and should go away. Or do they provide true but incomplete
information?
Should it use the AFPL or the GNU edition as a dependency?
Of course, doing a favor toward one of them (and taking away user's
choice) is unacceptable. So what happens is that make directly checks
whether the gs executable is present.
See, for example, print/gv. Your script's output will include
ghostscript-gnu-7.07_13 both as a build and a run dependency.
Yet when I type make, my ghostscript-gnu-7.07_12 installation will
be happily utilized as the following output snippet shows:
Is this not acceptable behavior since it is just a port revision?
Shouldn't the revision be compatible in every way with the vendor's release?
= Checksum OK for gv-3.6.1.tar.gz.
=== Patching for gv-3.6.1
=== Applying FreeBSD patches for gv-3.6.1
=== gv-3.6.1 depends on executable: gmake - found
=== gv-3.6.1 depends on executable: gs - found
=== gv-3.6.1 depends on shared library: Xaw3d - found
=== gv-3.6.1 depends on shared library: X11.6 - found
=== Configuring for gv-3.6.1
The approach taken by FreeBSD's ports is to have more flexibility but
less predictability, and now we have to live with it. Maybe the Gentoo
guys are the ones who succeeded to find the proper balance between these
two quantities -- they made up a mini-markup-language for denoting
dependencies, which is clever enough to cover all cases but it's still
just an easy to parse flat data.
One solution for FreeBSD could be
Determining what a port will install... (more than pretty-print-*) [Soln]
Hello,
Some time back I posted a question regarding how to determine what
ports/packages would need to be installed on my machine when I install a
new (new to the local machine) port.
For example, if I do not presently have openoffice installed... what
will get installed when I 'make install clean' it? Note that I want the
differences between what is needed to build/run the port and what is
already present on the machine.
At the time no one responded with a clear way to do this... so I finally
had a few minutes to write a script to do it for me. I thought someone
else might find it useful... So I'm posting it here for comments and
thoughts (be gentle, I'm new to awk).
I find it useful, especially for laptops... which may have a small HDD
and little memory. I generally try to install the minimum necessary to
do my work.
#! /bin/sh
# Script to determine the differences between what is necessary for
# a port, and what is already present on the local machine.
make pretty-print-build-depends-list | \
awk '{
count = 0
pkgs =
for(i=5; i=NF-2; i++) {
pkg = $i
if (index(pkg, \) == 1)
{pkg = substr(pkg, 2, length(pkg)-1)}
if (index(pkg, \) 1)
{pkg = substr(pkg, 1, length(pkg)-1)}
if ( system(pkg_info -e pkg) == 1) {
pkgs = pkgs pkg
count++
}
}
if ( count ) {
print You need the following (build) perequisites:
print pkgs
}
else {
print All (build) prerequisites are present.
}
}'
make pretty-print-run-depends-list | \
awk '{
count = 0
pkgs =
for(i=5; i=NF-2; i++) {
pkg = $i
if (index(pkg, \) == 1)
{pkg = substr(pkg, 2, length(pkg)-1)}
if (index(pkg, \) 1)
{pkg = substr(pkg, 1, length(pkg)-1)}
if ( system(pkg_info -e pkg) == 1) {
pkgs = pkgs pkg
count++
}
}
if ( count ) {
print You need the following (run) perequisites:
print pkgs
}
else {
print All (run) prerequisites are present.
}
}'
--
Regards,
Eric
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Determining what a port will install... (more than pretty-print-*) [Soln]
hmm... apologies on the poor formating.
Eric Schuele wrote:
Hello,
Some time back I posted a question regarding how to determine what
ports/packages would need to be installed on my machine when I install a
new (new to the local machine) port.
For example, if I do not presently have openoffice installed... what
will get installed when I 'make install clean' it? Note that I want the
differences between what is needed to build/run the port and what is
already present on the machine.
At the time no one responded with a clear way to do this... so I finally
had a few minutes to write a script to do it for me. I thought someone
else might find it useful... So I'm posting it here for comments and
thoughts (be gentle, I'm new to awk).
I find it useful, especially for laptops... which may have a small HDD
and little memory. I generally try to install the minimum necessary to
do my work.
#! /bin/sh
# Script to determine the differences between what is necessary for
# a port, and what is already present on the local machine.
make pretty-print-build-depends-list | \
awk '{
count = 0
pkgs =
for(i=5; i=NF-2; i++) {
pkg = $i
if (index(pkg, \) == 1)
{pkg = substr(pkg, 2, length(pkg)-1)}
if (index(pkg, \) 1)
{pkg = substr(pkg, 1, length(pkg)-1)}
if ( system(pkg_info -e pkg) == 1) {
pkgs = pkgs pkg
count++
}
}
if ( count ) {
print You need the following (build) perequisites:
print pkgs
}
else {
print All (build) prerequisites are present.
}
}'
make pretty-print-run-depends-list | \
awk '{
count = 0
pkgs =
for(i=5; i=NF-2; i++) {
pkg = $i
if (index(pkg, \) == 1)
{pkg = substr(pkg, 2, length(pkg)-1)}
if (index(pkg, \) 1)
{pkg = substr(pkg, 1, length(pkg)-1)}
if ( system(pkg_info -e pkg) == 1) {
pkgs = pkgs pkg
count++
}
}
if ( count ) {
print You need the following (run) perequisites:
print pkgs
}
else {
print All (run) prerequisites are present.
}
}'
--
Regards,
Eric
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
