Re: Ports & Packages [Stable] in sync
On Feb 17, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Jeff Tipton wrote: > On 02/17/2013 13:13, Damien Fleuriot wrote: >> On 16 Feb 2013, at 16:56, Jeff Tipton wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I upgraded 9.0 -> 9.1 on my netbook and only then found out that there are >>> no packages for 9.1-RELEASE. On my desktops, I keep ports and packages at >>> the RELEASE versions, so I only have to compile when I need non-default >>> options or when there are no packages. Would it be possible to get the >>> ports snapshot that was used to compile the 9-STABLE packages? I think I >>> could use subversion but then I need to know the revision number of that >>> snapshot. What do you suggest? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jeff >>> >> Hi Jeff, >> >> I think you might be confused here. >> >> It is my understanding that there are ports for: >> - HEAD >> - x.y-RELEASE >> >> I don't think you're going to be able to get a snapshot from 9-STABLE, >> because -STABLE is a continuing work. >> >> What version do you consider to be 9-STABLE ? >> Every time there's a new commit you get a "new" 9-STABLE. >> ___ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > Thank you, Damien, for the reply. AFAIK, STABLE gets updated every 2 weeks > but not every day, and it seems to be that because of the intrusion, it has > not been updated for long. The versions of the ports that come with the > 9.1-RELEASE are even slightly newer than those of 9-STABLE packages. I think > if I don't get the revision number from which the 9-STABLE was updated last > time I'll use the ports tree that comes with 9.1-RELEASE. I hope it won't > cause much version incompatibilities. I'm not sure where you're getting your 9-STABLE ports from, Jeff. In the SVN repository I only see release tags and HEAD: http://svn.freebsd.org/ports/ I also second Gilbert's advice about using HEAD for your ports tree, we do this here in production with over 50 boxes and have had no problems so far. If you still want to use the branch from 9.1-RELEASE, it's here: svn://svn.freebsd.org/ports/tags/RELEASE_9_1_0/ Note that, unless I'm wrong, you will not be getting *ANY* update to the ports tree then, it's frozen. This means no security updates and all, AFAICT. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports & Packages [Stable] in sync
Jeff Tipton writes: > Thank you, Damien, for the reply. AFAIK, STABLE gets updated every 2 > weeks but not every day, and it seems to be that because of the > intrusion, it has not been updated for long. The versions of the ports > that come with the 9.1-RELEASE are even slightly newer than those of > 9-STABLE packages. I think if I don't get the revision number from > which the 9-STABLE was updated last time I'll use the ports tree that > comes with 9.1-RELEASE. I hope it won't cause much version > incompatibilities. Um, not really. Or at least, not specific enough to be sure whether it is correct or not. The ports tree is not branched, and is intended to work with all supported branches and releases. In other words, regardless of whether you're running 9.1-RELEASE, 9-STABLE (in svn/cvs terms, RELENG_9), or 10.x (HEAD), you can (and, unless you have specific reasons otherwise, usually corporate security dictates) should use a ports tree checked out from HEAD. This is unrelated to whether packages are available for the ports on a particular branch or tag. Package availability is unusually limited at the moment, but that's because the build cluster has very limited capacity right now for a variety of reasons. That situation will improve over time, but until computers are infinitely fast, the package collection will lag somewhat behind the ports tree. Packages need to be built for a particular base system (or "close enough": generally all base-system versions in the same major-number release can run the packages for any other within that same series, most notably the -STABLE version). Additionally, -STABLE base system is "updated" by definition every time a developer checks into the relevant branch (currently RELENG_9). For ports, as I said earlier, there is no equivalent; updates go to HEAD, period. When packages get built for a particular base system is a matter of policy on the build cluster. I don't use downloaded packages for ports updates, but I would expect that to evolve as the new build cluster does. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports & Packages [Stable] in sync
On 02/17/2013 13:13, Damien Fleuriot wrote: On 16 Feb 2013, at 16:56, Jeff Tipton wrote: Hi, I upgraded 9.0 -> 9.1 on my netbook and only then found out that there are no packages for 9.1-RELEASE. On my desktops, I keep ports and packages at the RELEASE versions, so I only have to compile when I need non-default options or when there are no packages. Would it be possible to get the ports snapshot that was used to compile the 9-STABLE packages? I think I could use subversion but then I need to know the revision number of that snapshot. What do you suggest? Thanks, Jeff Hi Jeff, I think you might be confused here. It is my understanding that there are ports for: - HEAD - x.y-RELEASE I don't think you're going to be able to get a snapshot from 9-STABLE, because -STABLE is a continuing work. What version do you consider to be 9-STABLE ? Every time there's a new commit you get a "new" 9-STABLE. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" Thank you, Damien, for the reply. AFAIK, STABLE gets updated every 2 weeks but not every day, and it seems to be that because of the intrusion, it has not been updated for long. The versions of the ports that come with the 9.1-RELEASE are even slightly newer than those of 9-STABLE packages. I think if I don't get the revision number from which the 9-STABLE was updated last time I'll use the ports tree that comes with 9.1-RELEASE. I hope it won't cause much version incompatibilities. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports & Packages [Stable] in sync
On 16 Feb 2013, at 16:56, Jeff Tipton wrote: > Hi, > > I upgraded 9.0 -> 9.1 on my netbook and only then found out that there are no > packages for 9.1-RELEASE. On my desktops, I keep ports and packages at the > RELEASE versions, so I only have to compile when I need non-default options > or when there are no packages. Would it be possible to get the ports snapshot > that was used to compile the 9-STABLE packages? I think I could use > subversion but then I need to know the revision number of that snapshot. What > do you suggest? > > Thanks, > Jeff > Hi Jeff, I think you might be confused here. It is my understanding that there are ports for: - HEAD - x.y-RELEASE I don't think you're going to be able to get a snapshot from 9-STABLE, because -STABLE is a continuing work. What version do you consider to be 9-STABLE ? Every time there's a new commit you get a "new" 9-STABLE. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports and pbi
On 24/12/2012 07:08, иван кузнецов wrote: > i want to make pbi files for i386 freebsd on amd64 freebsd. i attempt > use virtualbox, but speed is low. what to do? I don't know about PBI's specifically, but a fairly standard technique for building i386 ports is to set up an i386 jail on an amd64 host. That should give you something pretty much as fast as your base system. You can create a 32bit jail in many ways, but probably the easiest thing to do is download one of the FreeBSD 32bit .iso images. You can then extract the install sets using tar(1) -- from within the .iso file system you want /usr/freebsd-dist/base.txz, and that you can untar in the root directory of your jail to give you a pretty complete system. Given you're after PBI's you can probably do a similar trick using PC-BSD install images, but I don't know the details there. I'm sure someone on one of the various PC-BSD fora will know though. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ports and 'make fetchindex'
jb gmail.com> writes: > ... -m option to fetch explains it. False alarm. jb ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports: deinstall-all
On 11/18/2012 12:18 AM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
# for p
in `pkg_info -ao | grep '.*/.*' | sed 's;.*;/usr/ports/&;'`
{
cd $p && make deinstall
}
All that to accomplish this? pkg_deinstall -fa
Good one. Thanks.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports: deinstall-all
--On November 17, 2012 11:25:11 PM +0200 Alexander Kapshuk
wrote:
On 11/13/2012 09:02 AM, Bernt Hansson wrote:
If you really want to remove all installed ports you can do as I do
pkg_delete -f \*
Perhaps not an ideal solution, but rather an alternative one, which works
in bourn-derived shells:
# for p
in `pkg_info -ao | grep '.*/.*' | sed 's;.*;/usr/ports/&;'`
{
cd $p && make deinstall
}
All that to accomplish this? pkg_deinstall -fa
Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not those of my employer.
***
"It is as useless to argue with those who have
renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson
"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very
intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports: deinstall-all
On 11/13/2012 09:02 AM, Bernt Hansson wrote:
If you really want to remove all installed ports you can do as I do
pkg_delete -f \*
Perhaps not an ideal solution, but rather an alternative one, which
works in bourn-derived shells:
# for p
in `pkg_info -ao | grep '.*/.*' | sed 's;.*;/usr/ports/&;'`
{
cd $p && make deinstall
}
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports: deinstall-all
2012-11-12 22:04, Gary Aitken skrev: Something pretty basic somewhere that I'm missing... "man ports" indicates the target "deinstall-all" will remove all installed ports. yet the target doesn't seem to exist: If you really want to remove all installed ports you can do as I do pkg_delete -f \* ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports: deinstall-all
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:04:39 -0700 Gary Aitken wrote: > Something pretty basic somewhere that I'm missing... > > "man ports" indicates the target "deinstall-all" will remove all > installed ports. That's not what the man page says. > yet the target doesn't seem to exist: > > #cd /usr/ports > #make deinstall-all > make: don't know how to make deinstall-all. stop. That's not what deinstall-all does, AFAIK it's a more thorough version of deinstall that will remove packages installed under different prefixes. > This was prompted by the following when attempting to install emacs: > > ===> Checking if devel/pkgconf already installed > ===> An older version of devel/pkgconf is already installed > (pkg-config-0.25_1) >... > > Where to go from here? > Why was pkgconf still installed? > There are other packages dependent on it... is that the reason? > If so, why no warning / info when I do the make deinstall? > Probably due to skipping UPDATING 20120726 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Виталий Туровец wrote: > 2012/9/9 Waitman Gobble : > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Polytropon wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:08:25 +0400, иван кузнецов wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > i was download 135g distfiles from russian mirror on usb hdd, > >> > and i have no room on laptop for this files.how to setup apps > >> > from it,how to build pbi files? i was read some articles but i > >> > cant. > >> > >> I assume it's better to ask PBI-related questions in PC-BSD's > >> web forum as those are not exactly "native FreeBSD things". > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Polytropon > >> Magdeburg, Germany > >> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 > >> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... > >> ___ > >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > >> freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > >> > > > > > > > > I'm not sure how building PBI files is going to help with your 135G of > > files from Russia that won't seem to fit on your drive, however there is > > some pbi software in ports for you to check out.. > > > > ports-mgmt/pbi-manager > > sysutils/pbimaker > > x11-fm/pbi-thumbnailer > > sysutils/easypbi > > > > > > I've experimented a bit with the software on FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT and > > PC-BSD 9 machine - but I'm not an authority on the subject ;-) ... pbi > > could prove to be a good way to test out stuff that needs newer glib, > gtk, > > etc, to avoid royally dorking up your system, like for example GIMP > > development sources from cvs, as an alternative to building in a jail and > > running the display through an X 'remote' connection. > > > > > > Here's a wiki page i found to be a good reference. > > > > http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/PBI_Module_Builder_Guide > > > > Waitman Gobble > > San Jose California > > ___ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > Sorry for offtopic, but for Ivan to know three things: > 1) building software (and/or packaging it using PBI/tbz) is WAY more > complicated then just downloading distfiles from some mirror. > 2) PC-BSD is BASED on but not EQUAL to FreeBSD and has it's own > mailing lists which can easily be found here - > http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo . Please do not think i'm > trying to be rude or get rid of new member, but sometimes one needs to > know the better way to find necessary information. > > 3) PC-BSD is based on FreeBSD since this deep knowledge of it > basically (i suppose) should begin with FreeBSD's Handbook which > carefully explains what ports are and how to use them. This page is a > good start (it's in Russian ;) ) > -http://www.freebsd.org/doc/ru_RU.KOI8-R/books/handbook/ . Ports > specific information can be easily found here - > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/ru_RU.KOI8-R/books/handbook/ports.html > > Cheers! > > > -- > > > > > ~~~ > WBR, > Vitaliy Turovets > Systems Administrator > Corebug.Net > +38(093)265-70-55 > VITU-RIPE > X-NCC-RegID: ua.tv > I have installed PC-BSD on a netbook. I have not played around on it a whole bunch, so I'm definitely not an expert. They really did a good job with it, PC-BSD has a more compelling visual experience. For a novice computer user it's a great way to have the experience of true Unix without ending up resorting to angry language on the mailing lists. For more experienced users it seems like it would be a robust platform for such as scientific research, medical systems developers, manufacturing control, process coordination and shop floor machine operation. On my Eee Pc Netbook I had some difficulty with the X configuration tool, which must be run in order to launch the desktop. I chose to install the Xfce desktop suite of the several choices available in the selection. The prompt display was pristine, yet the X test suffered some malfunction no matter which setting I tried. When I was able to launch the desktop, the display was off kilter and extremely difficult to navigate. This obstacle was overcome by manually updating the X configuration file. There are numerous resources available online for troubleshooting these kinds of problems. The system seems to be solid, so I'd be surprised if it offers the thrill of compiling your own operating system. But there are compiling tools available so one could presumably pull the source and do a build. Building a PBI package does indeed seem to be much more involved than making a package. A package build is straightforward and takes little effort to create a Makefile in the case that your intended software does not happen to already be in the ports collection. Also, the package system offers a way to easily synchronize software updates across many machines. After a package is built an
Re: ports
2012/9/9 Waitman Gobble : > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Polytropon wrote: > >> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:08:25 +0400, иван кузнецов wrote: >> > >> > >> > i was download 135g distfiles from russian mirror on usb hdd, >> > and i have no room on laptop for this files.how to setup apps >> > from it,how to build pbi files? i was read some articles but i >> > cant. >> >> I assume it's better to ask PBI-related questions in PC-BSD's >> web forum as those are not exactly "native FreeBSD things". >> >> >> -- >> Polytropon >> Magdeburg, Germany >> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 >> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... >> ___ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " >> freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >> > > > > I'm not sure how building PBI files is going to help with your 135G of > files from Russia that won't seem to fit on your drive, however there is > some pbi software in ports for you to check out.. > > ports-mgmt/pbi-manager > sysutils/pbimaker > x11-fm/pbi-thumbnailer > sysutils/easypbi > > > I've experimented a bit with the software on FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT and > PC-BSD 9 machine - but I'm not an authority on the subject ;-) ... pbi > could prove to be a good way to test out stuff that needs newer glib, gtk, > etc, to avoid royally dorking up your system, like for example GIMP > development sources from cvs, as an alternative to building in a jail and > running the display through an X 'remote' connection. > > > Here's a wiki page i found to be a good reference. > > http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/PBI_Module_Builder_Guide > > Waitman Gobble > San Jose California > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" Sorry for offtopic, but for Ivan to know three things: 1) building software (and/or packaging it using PBI/tbz) is WAY more complicated then just downloading distfiles from some mirror. 2) PC-BSD is BASED on but not EQUAL to FreeBSD and has it's own mailing lists which can easily be found here - http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo . Please do not think i'm trying to be rude or get rid of new member, but sometimes one needs to know the better way to find necessary information. 3) PC-BSD is based on FreeBSD since this deep knowledge of it basically (i suppose) should begin with FreeBSD's Handbook which carefully explains what ports are and how to use them. This page is a good start (it's in Russian ;) ) -http://www.freebsd.org/doc/ru_RU.KOI8-R/books/handbook/ . Ports specific information can be easily found here - http://www.freebsd.org/doc/ru_RU.KOI8-R/books/handbook/ports.html Cheers! -- ~~~ WBR, Vitaliy Turovets Systems Administrator Corebug.Net +38(093)265-70-55 VITU-RIPE X-NCC-RegID: ua.tv ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Polytropon wrote: > On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:08:25 +0400, иван кузнецов wrote: > > > > > > i was download 135g distfiles from russian mirror on usb hdd, > > and i have no room on laptop for this files.how to setup apps > > from it,how to build pbi files? i was read some articles but i > > cant. > > I assume it's better to ask PBI-related questions in PC-BSD's > web forum as those are not exactly "native FreeBSD things". > > > -- > Polytropon > Magdeburg, Germany > Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 > Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > I'm not sure how building PBI files is going to help with your 135G of files from Russia that won't seem to fit on your drive, however there is some pbi software in ports for you to check out.. ports-mgmt/pbi-manager sysutils/pbimaker x11-fm/pbi-thumbnailer sysutils/easypbi I've experimented a bit with the software on FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT and PC-BSD 9 machine - but I'm not an authority on the subject ;-) ... pbi could prove to be a good way to test out stuff that needs newer glib, gtk, etc, to avoid royally dorking up your system, like for example GIMP development sources from cvs, as an alternative to building in a jail and running the display through an X 'remote' connection. Here's a wiki page i found to be a good reference. http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/PBI_Module_Builder_Guide Waitman Gobble San Jose California ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:08:25 +0400, иван кузнецов wrote: > > > i was download 135g distfiles from russian mirror on usb hdd, > and i have no room on laptop for this files.how to setup apps > from it,how to build pbi files? i was read some articles but i > cant. I assume it's better to ask PBI-related questions in PC-BSD's web forum as those are not exactly "native FreeBSD things". -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports
2012/9/8 иван кузнецов : > > > > i was download 135g distfiles from russian mirror on usb hdd, and i have no > room on laptop for this files.how to setup apps from it,how to build pbi > files? i was read some articles but i cant. > > > > > > иван кузнецов. > >> > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" Well, basically, you can mount your usb HDD as distfiles directory under /usr/ports. That would be something like mount -t YOUR_USB_HDD_FILE_SYSTEM /dev/YOUR_USB_HDD /usr/ports/distfiles. Also note that not only distfiles are required, your ports tree must be in sync with distfiles directory (same versions, names and sizes/checksumms). Cheers. -- ~~~ WBR, Vitaliy Turovets Systems Administrator Corebug.Net +38(093)265-70-55 VITU-RIPE X-NCC-RegID: ua.tv ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports building automatically with default options?
-Original Message- From: Lowell Gilbert I just saw on the ports list that it has just been fixed. Looks like a typo in ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk. Sorry for doubting you... No worries, was pretty stumped myself for a while there. Time to subscribe to ports@ too then I reckon. -Reko ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports building automatically with default options?
"Reko Turja" writes: > Ghost in the machine? :D I just saw on the ports list that it has just been fixed. Looks like a typo in ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk. Sorry for doubting you... Good luck. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports building automatically with default options?
From: Fernando Apesteguía Did you see a message like "Found saved configuration for $port"? On perl, which I configured manually, but on others please see later in the message. Did you try to see what happens if you run "make rmconfig" on those ports? ===> No user-specified options configured for ruby-1.8.7.370,1 From: Lowell Gilbert Strange indeed. What does "make config" do on this system? Opens dialog & saves config as intended Maybe you have something in your environment? Environment seems to be vanilla. Seems like building skips config step altogether, or not echoing about it at least: ---> Reinstalling 'ruby-1.8.7.370,1' (lang/ruby18) ---> Building '/usr/ports/lang/ruby18' ===> Cleaning for ruby-1.8.7.370,1 ===> Extracting for ruby-1.8.7.370,1 => SHA256 Checksum OK for ruby/ruby-1.8.7-p370.tar.bz2. /bin/mv /usr/ports/lang/ruby18/work/ruby-1.8.7-p370/ext/dl/h2rb /usr/ports/lang/ruby18/work/ruby-1.8.7-p370/bin/ ===> Patching for ruby-1.8.7.370,1 ===> Applying FreeBSD patches for ruby-1.8.7.370,1 /bin/rm -rf /usr/ports/lang/ruby18/work/ruby-1.8.7-p370/ext/Win32API /bin/rm -rf /usr/ports/lang/ruby18/work/ruby-1.8.7-p370/ext/win32ole /bin/mv /usr/ports/lang/ruby18/work/ruby-1.8.7-p370/ext/gdbm /usr/ports/lang/ruby18/work/ /bin/mv /usr/ports/lang/ruby18/work/ruby-1.8.7-p370/ext/iconv /usr/ports/lang/ruby18/work/ /bin/mv /usr/ports/lang/ruby18/work/ruby-1.8.7-p370/ext/tk /usr/ports/lang/ruby18/work/ ===> ruby-1.8.7.370,1 depends on file: /usr/local/bin/automake-1.12 - found ===> ruby-1.8.7.370,1 depends on file: /usr/local/bin/autoconf-2.69 - found ===> Configuring for ruby-1.8.7.370,1 /usr/bin/touch /usr/ports/lang/ruby18/work/ruby-1.8.7-p370/configure checking build system type... i386-portbld-freebsd9 portupgrade -afc skips config step as well portupgrade -afC gives the dialogs Ghost in the machine? :D -Reko ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports building automatically with default options?
"Reko Turja" writes: > -Original Message- > From: Lowell Gilbert > >> The defaults haven't changed, so something must have happened locally. >> Check whether you've got BATCH defined in make.conf, and whether >> /var/db/ports contains configurations for those ports. > > That's the strange thing... Virgin system, just updated ports tree and > index & started building. No knobs in make.conf and /var/db/ports is > empty... Strange indeed. What does "make config" do on this system? Maybe you have something in your environment? > I wonder if there's some kind of hickup going on at cvsup.se.freebsd.org... I can't think of anything along those lines which would explain these symptoms. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports building automatically with default options?
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Reko Turja wrote: > -Original Message- From: Lowell Gilbert > > >> The defaults haven't changed, so something must have happened locally. >> Check whether you've got BATCH defined in make.conf, and whether >> /var/db/ports contains configurations for those ports. > > > That's the strange thing... Virgin system, just updated ports tree and index > & started building. No knobs in make.conf and /var/db/ports is empty... Strange really... Did you see a message like "Found saved configuration for $port"? Did you try to see what happens if you run "make rmconfig" on those ports? > > I wonder if there's some kind of hickup going on at cvsup.se.freebsd.org... > > -Reko > > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports building automatically with default options?
-Original Message- From: Lowell Gilbert The defaults haven't changed, so something must have happened locally. Check whether you've got BATCH defined in make.conf, and whether /var/db/ports contains configurations for those ports. That's the strange thing... Virgin system, just updated ports tree and index & started building. No knobs in make.conf and /var/db/ports is empty... I wonder if there's some kind of hickup going on at cvsup.se.freebsd.org... -Reko ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports building automatically with default options?
"Reko Turja" writes: > I just installed new 9.0 machine from scratch, cvsupped ports, fetched > index and started building portupgrade. Both perl and ruby built with > default options, without running config. No changes in port building > steps nor workaround for this POLA violation anywhere in the UPDATING > etc. as far as I could see. > > Is there workarounds or information how to get ports building the old > way with asking options? The defaults haven't changed, so something must have happened locally. Check whether you've got BATCH defined in make.conf, and whether /var/db/ports contains configurations for those ports. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports: make config-recursive doesn't really
from Gary Aitken : I'm trying to build a script to rebuild and reinstall everything I have installed from ports. I don't want to have to keep checking on it and filling out the +appropriate check boxes for options. I naively assumed: for port in $ports do cd /usr/port/$port make config-recursive cd ../.. done would allow me to set up all the dependencies before continuing with the install. It appears, however, that it doesn't really recurse properly. I say "appears" only because this is my first time trying this and despite doing the above +setting of options, I am confronted with additional options screens as the build progresses. Is there a way to get around this? This has happened to me too, all too many times. One way to avoid this problem is to run make config-recursive repeatedly until you get no more dialog screens. Or you can try portmaster as Subhro Sankha Kar suggests; I am only getting started with portmaster, successfully portmastered cdrtools. I have a lot of ports now to upgrade (master?) I like to keep a log such as by (command) | & tee /path/to/log-file, or anything else that works equally well. Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports: make config-recursive doesn't really
You can have a look at port-mgmt/portmaster. Thanks Subhro -- Subhro Sankha Kar System Administrator Working and Playing with FreeBSD since 2002 On 10-Jun-2012, at 10:07 PM, Gary Aitken wrote: > I'm trying to build a script to rebuild and reinstall everything I have > installed from ports. I don't want to have to keep checking on it and > filling out the appropriate check boxes for options. I naively assumed: > > for port in $ports > do >cd /usr/port/$port >make config-recursive >cd ../.. > done > > would allow me to set up all the dependencies before continuing with the > install. > > It appears, however, that it doesn't really recurse properly. I say > "appears" only because this is my first time trying this and despite doing > the above setting of options, I am confronted with additional options screens > as the build progresses. > > Is there a way to get around this? > > Thanks, > > Gary > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [ports] why no libXXX after make install of libXXX?
2012-05-27 01:17, Gary Aitken skrev: On 05/26/12 14:03, Gary Aitken wrote: I'm trying to install audacious, which depends on libmowgli. The port fails to build because of a missing library. Shouldn't the build of a library result in the library being placed in /usr/local/lib? I notice that /var/db/pkg/libmowgli-1.0.0/+CONTENTS and similar files for a few other packages shows files which don't exist: @comment PKG_FORMAT_REVISION:1.1 @name libmowgli-1.0.0 @comment ORIGIN:devel/libmowgli @cwd /usr/local ... lib/libmowgli.so It's a link. lib/libmowgli.so.2 So is this one. lib/libmowgli.so.2.0.0 Links to this file. I had no problems building devel/libmowgli lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel18 28 Maj 12:38 libmowgli.so -> libmowgli.so.2.0.0 lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel18 28 Maj 12:38 libmowgli.so.2 -> libmowgli.so.2.0.0 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 88546 28 Maj 12:38 libmowgli.so.2.0.0 I think this is a screwed up situation; there are no libmowgli files in /usr/local/lib What's the best way to recover from it if so? Try pkg_add -r libmowgli ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [ports] why no libXXX after make install of libXXX?
On 26 May 2012 19:17, Gary Aitken wrote: > On 05/26/12 14:03, Gary Aitken wrote: >> I'm trying to install audacious, which depends on libmowgli. >> The port fails to build because of a missing library. >> Shouldn't the build of a library result in the library being placed in >> /usr/local/lib? > > I notice that /var/db/pkg/libmowgli-1.0.0/+CONTENTS > and similar files for a few other packages > shows files which don't exist: > > @comment PKG_FORMAT_REVISION:1.1 > @name libmowgli-1.0.0 > @comment ORIGIN:devel/libmowgli > @cwd /usr/local > ... > lib/libmowgli.so > lib/libmowgli.so.2 > lib/libmowgli.so.2.0.0 > > I think this is a screwed up situation; > there are no libmowgli files in /usr/local/lib > > What's the best way to recover from it if so? > Well, running it here installs the expected files: ~> ls -l /local/lib | grep mowg lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel18 May 27 16:11 libmowgli.so -> libmowgli.so.2.0.0 lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel18 May 27 16:11 libmowgli.so.2 -> libmowgli.so.2.0.0 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 84442 May 27 16:11 libmowgli.so.2.0.0 I would try running "make deinstall reinstall" from the port directory & working from there. Later: I deinstalled it, & the next time I ran "make install" from the port directory it claimed to install libmowgli, but installed nothing. "make deinstall reinstall" however worked. I have no idea why it did this. -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [ports] why no libXXX after make install of libXXX?
On 05/26/12 14:03, Gary Aitken wrote: > I'm trying to install audacious, which depends on libmowgli. > The port fails to build because of a missing library. > Shouldn't the build of a library result in the library being placed in > /usr/local/lib? I notice that /var/db/pkg/libmowgli-1.0.0/+CONTENTS and similar files for a few other packages shows files which don't exist: @comment PKG_FORMAT_REVISION:1.1 @name libmowgli-1.0.0 @comment ORIGIN:devel/libmowgli @cwd /usr/local ... lib/libmowgli.so lib/libmowgli.so.2 lib/libmowgli.so.2.0.0 I think this is a screwed up situation; there are no libmowgli files in /usr/local/lib What's the best way to recover from it if so? Thanks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports tree
This was good to know. as others told there is smarter way to do this set WRKDIRPREFIX to somewhere else. no. Is there such environment variables that can be pointed to writeable partition? That sources download and compiles on different partition. Then there is no bandwidth problem since only Makefile kind of files get readed from the server. WRKDIRPREFIX solves work directory. if you properly regulate access rights and YOU administer that machines, i would do NFS mounted read-write /usr/ports/distfiles. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports tree
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > Would it be stupid idea to have publicly available, mountable (nfs) >> partition, with full port tree(s)? I think it would be good for >> systems with low storage space. I know hd space is cheap, but I run >> over and over to this problem. >> > > read only or read write? > public read write isn't smart. > I was thinking unionfs kind of temporary layer which keeps physical content separated. Only write changes to memory file system or so.. session end will throw everything into bits heaven (/dev/null). :) > > I don't know how easily it could be done, but some kind of session >> based temporary write permissions would be good too. To be able to >> make && make install directly from mounted partition. >> > > man mount_unionfs > > This was good to know. > > > I don't think very many people would need to have local personal copy >> of ports tree then. >> >> So, is this just stupid? >> > > no. > Is there such environment variables that can be pointed to writeable partition? That sources download and compiles on different partition. Then there is no bandwidth problem since only Makefile kind of files get readed from the server. Well, maybe this idea wont fly. I'm going to buy new hd anyways. :) Thanks anyways! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports tree
Would it be stupid idea to have publicly available, mountable (nfs) partition, with full port tree(s)? I think it would be good for systems with low storage space. I know hd space is cheap, but I run over and over to this problem. read only or read write? public read write isn't smart. I don't know how easily it could be done, but some kind of session based temporary write permissions would be good too. To be able to make && make install directly from mounted partition. man mount_unionfs I don't think very many people would need to have local personal copy of ports tree then. So, is this just stupid? no. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports tree
from Henri Reinikainen : > Would it be stupid idea to have publicly available, mountable (nfs) > partition, with full port tree(s)? I think it would be good for > systems with low storage space. I know hd space is cheap, but I run > over and over to this problem. > I don't know how easily it could be done, but some kind of session > based temporary write permissions would be good too. To be able to > make && make install directly from mounted partition. > I don't think very many people would need to have local personal copy > of ports tree then. > So, is this just stupid? What happens if the port a remote user is trying to build and install is updated in the middle of this remote activity? Users of ports tree then must deal with a moving target. Files from two different versions might get mixed together. I think maybe this thread should go to po...@freebsd.org list? Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports tree
On 26/05/2012 07:57, Henri Reinikainen wrote: > Would it be stupid idea to have publicly available, mountable (nfs) > partition, with full port tree(s)? I think it would be good for > systems with low storage space. I know hd space is cheap, but I run > over and over to this problem. > > I don't know how easily it could be done, but some kind of session > based temporary write permissions would be good too. To be able to > make && make install directly from mounted partition. > > I don't think very many people would need to have local personal copy > of ports tree then. > > So, is this just stupid? Not stupid, but certainly impracticable. Remote mounting filesystems over the internet is not going to be anything like scalable, and the bandwidth requirements would be horrid. As an end-user, performance would suck -- inescapably, as you'ld be hit hard by latency. Basically, if you could afford the sort of network connectivity that would make such a setup feasible, then you could easily afford sufficient local storage that you wouldn't want to use a remote mount. Also, forget the idea of *writing* to any such share disk space. The security problems with that just don't bear thinking about. NFS mounting /usr/ports within a local network -- now, that's a completely different kettle of fish. You do need to tweak WRKDIRPREFIX if you're going to have several systems building from the same tree simultaneously, and it's probably going to be more effective for you to use one machine as a central package build server and just install from packages on your limited systems. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ports build and synchronization issues
This was the result of a conflict with building another port at the same time, and is a known issue. See: http://wiki.freebsd.org/IdeasPage#Parallelization_in_the_Ports_Collection On 05/25/12 12:16, Gary Aitken wrote: > I've had a number of failures attempting to build things, > but on several occasions builds have failed with what looks like may be > threading / subprocess synchronization issues. > I'm running 9.0-RELEASE on a 4-processor amd64 system w/ 16GB. > > For example, an attempt to build openoffice-3 failed building package > textproc/redland when a dependent package build couldn't find some doc pages. > It was trying to build textproc/rasqal and looking for what I think was > the open-motif library and couldn't find it because > the (open-motif?) install failed because of the doc pages issue. > Rerunning "make install" at the openoffice-3 level still failed at the same > point. > Going to the dependent text package and doing a make install claimed the > package was already installed. > "make deinstall" and "make clean install" solved the issue. > > I'm a little fuzzy on the details because I don't have the build output, > and used two different windows, one to build and another to check status > using pkg_info, etc. > Backing up in the command history I have this, > which resulted in a complete build: > > cd openoffice-3 > make original failure due to missing doc files > make -v install repeated the same failure > cd ../../textproc/redlandattempt to build dependent pkg redland > make clean > make -v install failed on dependent pkg rasqal > cd ../rasqal > make deinstall begin of successful build of rasqal > make clean > make install > cd ../../textproc/redland > make install begin of successful build of redland > cd ../../editors/openoffice-3 > make install resume& successful build of openoffice-3 > > The original error seems like a synchronization problem > between the subprocesses doing the builds. > Is anyone else seeing this kind of behavior? > > Gary > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports-Related Commands Hanging After 9.0 Upgrade
On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:33:29 -0400 Sam Jones wrote: > Hi all, > > Forgive me if this is a repeat topic. I'd appreciate it if somebody > could point me to the answer. > > I recently upgraded to 9.0 on my server, but since then a lot of > ports-related commands (portupgrade, pkg_version, portsnap, etc.) just > hang when I try to execute them. I'm not even really sure where to > begin troubleshooting. Has anybody else seen this behavior? > Upgrading world leads to many system libs being updated, too. When ports are dependant on these, a recompile of these ports might help. If you need/want to be sure, sysutils/bsdadminscripts is supposed to contain a script to check for broken shared libs system-wide and a ldd(1) on the binary you are trying to run will spit out some libraries you can the try to find(1). Hope to have been of some help, cheers, Christopher ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports Libraries - Shared object "libz.so.5" not found
>ls -l /lib/libz* lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel9 4 22 09:00 /lib/libz.so.5@ -> libz.so.6 When i installed wine, it reported the same error which is fixed simply by a symbolic link. - e^(π.i) + 1 = 0 -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Ports-Libraries-Shared-object-libz-so-5-not-found-tp5662329p5663803.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports Libraries - Shared object "libz.so.5" not found
On 24.04.2012 10:07, Carolyn Longfoot wrote: I'm on 9.0 Release AMD64 and did not have Compat8x installed from ports which fixed the issue, but I am wondering what (apart from upgrading *all* ports) would be the correct approach to find out which port needs to be updated so that whatever references the libz.so.5 version instead of libz.so.6 gets updated? This is very confusing to me because I got the error with php, and I am on the very latest php5-5.3.10_1 version which I would expect to reference current libraries. Now I also have a problem with libssl.so.7, which popped up with Samba36. Again I'm wondering what version provides the .7 incarnation. I found a comment (http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=21886) that this library is part of security/openssl but a reinstall just now of openssl only gave me libssl.so.8, so that's no longer valid. Creating a link to libssl.so.7 fixes the problem but is probably not the correct approach. I guess the summary of the above is the question how one should go about keeping/getting the right library versions. Or is that really a port problem because they do not keep step with dependencies? An explanation in layman's terms would be appreciated :-) Thanks, Caro ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" pkg_libchk from the sysutils/bsdadminscripts port should show you anything that is pointing to a missing shared library. Yes you should rebuild the samba36 port so that it links against the new libssl.so.8 library. I ran into a few of these when upgrading from openssl-1.0.0_10 to openssl-1.0.1, I also believe I hit the libcrypto.so.7 missing as well. I temporary linked them as you did, then rebuilt all ports just to be safe. if you use portmaster to update ports, doing a -r on the openssl port would have recompiled all the ports dependent on it. However in my case it blew up because of these missing libraries, adding a -w (causes shared libraries to be kept) as well resolved this on the additional machines I updated. -- Thanks, Dean E. Weimer dwei...@dweimer.net http://www.dweimer.net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports with modern compilers
Hi-- On Jan 12, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Dmitry Sarkisov wrote: > Hello list, I'd hope that you are reading the list; as your address bounces: Begin forwarded message: > From: postmas...@mac.com > Date: January 12, 2012 9:07:37 PM PST > To: cswi...@mac.com > Subject: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed > > This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields: > > Message-id: <467d6fa8-f0fa-45b3-b367-20fe9ad64...@mac.com> > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:07:05 -0800 > From: Chuck Swiger > To: Dmitry Sarkisov > Subject: Re: Ports with modern compilers > > Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients: > > Recipient address: ait_ml...@rocc.ru > Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address > Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.7.1 ... Access denied > Remote system: dns;mail.rocc.ru (TCP|17.148.16.97|53739|194.84.224.171|25) > (mail.rocc.ru ESMTP [peer1]; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:07:27 +0400 [MSK];) > > Original-envelope-id: 0lxq00ais0vuw...@asmtp022.mac.com > Reporting-MTA: dns;asmtp022-bge351000.mac.com (tcp-daemon) > Arrival-date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:07:06 + (GMT) > > Original-recipient: rfc822;ait_ml...@rocc.ru > Final-recipient: rfc822;ait_ml...@rocc.ru > Action: failed > Status: 5.7.1 (Remote SMTP server has rejected address) > Remote-MTA: dns;mail.rocc.ru (TCP|17.148.16.97|53739|194.84.224.171|25) > (mail.rocc.ru ESMTP [peer1]; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:07:27 +0400 [MSK];) > Diagnostic-code: smtp;550 5.7.1 ... Access denied ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports with modern compilers
On Jan 12, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Dmitry Sarkisov wrote: > Hello list, > > I'd like to try building my ports with features and optimizations modern > complers provide. > A couple of q. here: > > 1. What's the safest (less painful) way to go - build with fresh gcc or > clang/llvm? For portable code, there shouldn't be much difference in terms of getting a working result. Clang tries to have better diagnostics than gcc; gcc has been around for a lot longer, and is much more likely to work with less-portable code due to GNU'isms. > 2. Is it ok to build new ports with new compiler, while already having a > bunch of them build with default gcc version 4.2.1? Yes. A more complete answer would be mostly, so long as nobody has changed C++ symbol mangling or a host of other details. Have fun, but don't expect too much benefit from recompiling things with a newer compiler. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
Alejandro Imass writes: Hi, > IMO it's stupid as well and I second Dick's opinion. You're at least two, great. > The module doesn't hurt anyone, and reduces confusion. I think that > PHP is still more heavily deployed on mod_php than on anything else. > The Apache module should be built by default unless there is a really > strong argument as to why it shouldn't. And then someone will pop here telling that he doesn't need mod_php and doesn't understand why it's packaged by default and that his own configuration should be the default instead... Éric Masson -- Ce personnage doit probablement avoir des qualités cachées (bien cachées) pour ne pas avoir été rejeté par ces paires. Ou bien ça s'apelle l'esprit de corps. -+- FrF in : GNU - Il a les couilles chevillées au corps -+- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote: >> Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef: >> >>> Dick Hoogendijk writes: >>> >>> Hi, >>> As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo. >>> >>> *You* think it's stupid. >> >> Yes, as I wrote: "stupid imo" >> But thanks again for your reply. You may be right but I still feel it's >> better to *have* the pache module and disable it than to *have to* use >> ports >> just to get it. >> > > IMO it's stupid as well and I second Dick's opinion. The module > doesn't hurt anyone, and reduces confusion. I think that PHP is still > more heavily deployed on mod_php than on anything else. The Apache > module should be built by default unless there is a really strong > argument as to why it shouldn't. > > -- > Alejandro Imass When I do pkg_add -r php I'm supposed to install apache as a dependency to that package ? Then people will ask why apache and all its glory is installed and we'll be back to this same argument but in reverse. ]Peter[ All my stuff runs on 'cheap' hardware, so I build most items, removing crud I don't need and will never use. [portmaster, list all the dependencies, then do 'pkg_add' on the ones I made no change in 'make-config']. Lean mean serving machine vs. everything and the kitchen sink all purpose serving machine. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote: > Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef: > >> Dick Hoogendijk writes: >> >> Hi, >> >>> As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo. >> >> *You* think it's stupid. > > Yes, as I wrote: "stupid imo" > But thanks again for your reply. You may be right but I still feel it's > better to *have* the pache module and disable it than to *have to* use ports > just to get it. > IMO it's stupid as well and I second Dick's opinion. The module doesn't hurt anyone, and reduces confusion. I think that PHP is still more heavily deployed on mod_php than on anything else. The Apache module should be built by default unless there is a really strong argument as to why it shouldn't. -- Alejandro Imass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef: Dick Hoogendijk writes: Hi, As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo. *You* think it's stupid. Yes, as I wrote: "stupid imo" But thanks again for your reply. You may be right but I still feel it's better to *have* the pache module and disable it than to *have to* use ports just to get it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
Dick Hoogendijk writes: Hi, > As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo. *You* think it's stupid. There's not one true way to serve php pages, more and more platforms use a lightweight httpd daemon like nginx and php-fpm for example. If you manage many servers, you can build custom packages with options you need and then deploy. If you tinker with your home server, using the ports isn't that a problem... Éric Masson -- je comprend pas ce a quoi sert ce site ou cette boite a lettre.J'y voit plein de messages et autres anneries alors si tu pouvais m'aider et me repondre pour m'expliquer a qui et a quoi servent toutes ses phrases -+- DD in http://www.le-gnu.net : Allo Huston, nous avons un neuneu. -+- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On 10-01-2012, Tue [10:16:06], Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 10/01/2012 09:23, Dmitry Sarkisov wrote: > > Would be nice to know if there any plans on switching to pkgng or any other > > pkg management > > system in a future. > > pkgng is under active development with the stated aim of replacing the > current packaging system. If you want to get involved, check out the > #pkgng channel on irc.freenode.net > > It's still too early in the pkgng development cycle for a decision to > have been made about if and when it becomes the new standard packaging > system. Given it is such a major infrastructure change the switch over > will have to be carefully managed and I'd expect there to be a lot of > activity over on freebsd-ports@ while it is all in beta. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > Thanks for the info, Matthew! It's really good to see some moving forward once in a while. -- Best wishes, Dmitry Sarkisov <--\ <---+-- <--/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
Op 9-1-2012 23:00, alexus schreef: Thank you so much for this wonderful feedback! One of the things I'm seeing is that unfortunately packages are somewhat limited vs ports... 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... As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On 10/01/2012 09:23, Dmitry Sarkisov wrote: > Would be nice to know if there any plans on switching to pkgng or any other > pkg management > system in a future. pkgng is under active development with the stated aim of replacing the current packaging system. If you want to get involved, check out the #pkgng channel on irc.freenode.net It's still too early in the pkgng development cycle for a decision to have been made about if and when it becomes the new standard packaging system. Given it is such a major infrastructure change the switch over will have to be carefully managed and I'd expect there to be a lot of activity over on freebsd-ports@ while it is all in beta. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ports vs packages
On 10-01-2012, Tue [08:51:33], n j wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske > > wrote: > >> Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments. > >> Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to > >> stay up-to-date rather than only upgrading once every 1-2 years. > > > > We think the opposite. Serious production environments should use > > specifically compiled ports for your needs and create packages from > > those. In fact we combine this approach with the use of EzJail and > > flavours. So I guess it all depends on the needs and what a serious > > production environment means for each company or individual. > > I would tend to agree. For specific use cases, one is usually better > off having complete control over the entire build/compile process i.e. > using ports. > > However, for (IMHO) majority of users the default options are usually > OK and using packages is highly desired. That is why I really look > forward to improvements of (again IMHO) obsolete binary package format > (pkg-*) and hope that either pkgng (http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng) or > new PBI format in PC-BSD (http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/PBI9_Format) > will gain more traction in the community. > > Regards, > -- > Nino Would be nice to know if there any plans on switching to pkgng or any other pkg management system in a future. -- Dmitry Sarkisov <--\ <---+-- <--/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske wrote: >> Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments. >> Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to stay >> up-to-date rather than only upgrading once every 1-2 years. > > We think the opposite. Serious production environments should use > specifically compiled ports for your needs and create packages from > those. In fact we combine this approach with the use of EzJail and > flavours. So I guess it all depends on the needs and what a serious > production environment means for each company or individual. I would tend to agree. For specific use cases, one is usually better off having complete control over the entire build/compile process i.e. using ports. However, for (IMHO) majority of users the default options are usually OK and using packages is highly desired. That is why I really look forward to improvements of (again IMHO) obsolete binary package format (pkg-*) and hope that either pkgng (http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng) or new PBI format in PC-BSD (http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/PBI9_Format) will gain more traction in the community. Regards, -- Nino ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM, alexus wrote: > Thank you so much for this wonderful feedback! > > One of the things I'm seeing is that unfortunately packages are > somewhat limited vs ports... > > 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... > The port in lang/php52 has a build apache module option. Seems weird to me that the module is not built with the binary distro of the php52 package. It also seems weird that in the port, the apache module option is not selected by default. Maybe it's because the PHP crowd seems to have a grudge against the apache module and the maintainer follows that sentiment? What good is php52 if not to run with Apache :-) Yeah I don't like php that much, but IMHO the apache module should be selected by default if it's detected that Apache is installed on the system. Maybe you should write the port maintainer and get his take on the matter. -- Alejandro Imass > http://alexus.org/ > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
Thank you so much for this wonderful feedback! One of the things I'm seeing is that unfortunately packages are somewhat limited vs ports... 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... -- http://alexus.org/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: ports vs packages
> -Original Message- > From: aim...@yabarana.com [mailto:aim...@yabarana.com] On Behalf Of > Alejandro Imass > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:37 AM > To: Devin Teske > Cc: alexus; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: ports vs packages > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske > wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > > [...] > > > Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments. Desktop > and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to stay up-to-date > rather than only upgrading once every 1-2 years. > > We think the opposite. Serious production environments should use specifically > compiled ports for your needs and create packages from those. In fact we > combine this approach with the use of EzJail and flavours. So I guess it all depends > on the needs and what a serious production environment means for each > company or individual. Thanks for the nod ... indeed it varies from each company and individual. Another thing to watch out for with ports is architecture-dependent optimizations. Usually it's pretty safe so-long-as you don't heavily pollute your make.conf or heavily dip-into the various config options for each port. In our case, the concern is that if you optimize and then deliver to older hardware, something goes awry. You can often mitigate such things by using the "lowest common denominator" amongst your clients hardware pool, and/or mandating a minimum-set of base requirements that you target. Stating these requirements explicitly to your customer base in a prominent section of the release-notes for each release should assuage such problems, but it's also very important to get that list (especially if there are big changes in the requirements from one release to the next) to your customers in a timely manner *before* the actual release, so that they can inventory their hardware pool (determining the "damage" if you will and perhaps giving them time to perform a "tech refresh" to get up to speed with the [potentially] new requirements). Above all else, it's also paramount that (if you use ports heavily to compile binary packages from which machines are subsequently built) should you ever change out your compilation hardware, that you notify your customers of the specs of your new build machine (considering that your build machine should usually be representative of the lowest-common-denominator within the scope of production hardware still in-use). -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- [...] > Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments. > Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to stay > up-to-date rather than only upgrading once every 1-2 years. We think the opposite. Serious production environments should use specifically compiled ports for your needs and create packages from those. In fact we combine this approach with the use of EzJail and flavours. So I guess it all depends on the needs and what a serious production environment means for each company or individual. -- Alejandro Imass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On 1/9/12 6:48 PM, claudiu vasadi wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM, alexus wrote: > >> Ports vs Packages? >> >> /usr/ports vs pkg_* >> >> pros/cons >> >> -- >> http://alexus.org/ >> ___ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " >> freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >> > > > you google-ing vs you google-ing > > pro/cons ? > Now posting in a legendary thread. Also, http://fail.my.gd/legendary_thread.jpg Although, I have to say your reply is a bit blunt ;) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Polytropon wrote: On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:17:37 -0500, alexus wrote: Ports vs Packages? /usr/ports vs pkg_* pros/cons In short: ports: pro: most current, if properly updated build from source (security!) apply optimization (speed!) apply compile-time options (functionality!) highly configurable easy updating of installed stuff cons: requires time requires disk space requires CPU packages: pro: fast installation less typing works good on low resource systems cons: not "bleeding edge" not all ports available as packages primarily means of "first time installation" Don't forget that ports build based on installed libraries. Packages have been built on another system and may expect different versions than are present on the target system. A pretty good analogy is custom-tailored versus off-the-rack. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM, alexus wrote: > Ports vs Packages? > > /usr/ports vs pkg_* > > pros/cons > > -- > http://alexus.org/ > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > you google-ing vs you google-ing pro/cons ? -- Best regards, Claudiu Vasadi ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: ports vs packages
> -Original Message- > From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of alexus > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 9:18 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: ports vs packages > > Ports vs Packages? > > /usr/ports vs pkg_* > > pros/cons > For a very serious production environment, here's our recipe... 1. Always and forever packages first 2. If you can't find it in the pre-compiled packages for your release... then use ports 3. But if the port wants too many dependencies, ... we build our own package. Your mileage may vary, but the reason we've adopted this scheme is because precompiled binary packages already have their dependencies set in stone. Opposed to ports, if you pull two related packages from the ports-tree at two different times (months apart), then the dependencies may have "floated" away from your release and therefore, you may end up installing 30+ package dependencies when it may not absolutely be necessary to do so. We've been doing things this way since FreeBSD 2.2.2-RELEASE (migrated from 2.2.2 to 4.4, then 4.8, then 4.11, then stuck on 4.11 for some years, and now 8.1). Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments. Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to stay up-to-date rather than only upgrading once every 1-2 years. -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, January 9, 2012 12:17 pm, alexus wrote: > Ports vs Packages? > > /usr/ports vs pkg_* > > pros/cons Ports: Compiled to *your* specs, for *your* machine. Faster/smaller downloads. More options available for customization. Can apply your own patches. Packages: Faster installs. Known configurations, that have been tested by others. Less resources needed on your machine. (Don't need to spend time compiling.) They can work together, in many situations. (Where some apps are installed one way, and some are installed the other.) Daniel T. Staal --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:06:27 -0500, Alejandro Imass wrote: > Use pre-built binary packages to install very large > stuff like Gnome, Open Office, etc. Not an option if your required language settings or the inclusion or exclusion of desktop bindings (KDE, Gnome, CUPS) don't match the default options from wich the package has been built. Also may apply to X.org (HAL and DBUS dependencies, if they're not desired or basically useless). Otherwise, no objections. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:17:37 -0500, alexus wrote: > Ports vs Packages? > > /usr/ports vs pkg_* > > pros/cons In short: ports: pro: most current, if properly updated build from source (security!) apply optimization (speed!) apply compile-time options (functionality!) highly configurable easy updating of installed stuff cons: requires time requires disk space requires CPU packages: pro: fast installation less typing works good on low resource systems cons: not "bleeding edge" not all ports available as packages primarily means of "first time installation" The list could go on for hours. Consensus: Use a port management tool (such as portmaster or even portupgrade) if you don't want to deal with "bare ports". Furthermore, consult the mailing list archives for more elaborate answers and discussions. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM, alexus wrote: > Ports vs Packages? > > /usr/ports vs pkg_* > > pros/cons The beauty of FBSD: they ultimately update the same DB, heck even Perl modules installed via the FBSD CPAN shell get updated to that same db. My rule of thumb: use ports for everything, compile with your own options, etc. Use pre-built binary packages to install very large stuff like Gnome, Open Office, etc. -- Alejandro Imass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports make search not working in jails
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Jason Helfman wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:05:14AM -0400, Alejandro Imass thus spake: >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Alejandro Imass wrote: Hi, > [...] > Today I noticed something interesting... > [...] OK, so it happened to me again on a new server and here is the cause: When you initialize ezjail if you forget the -p to include ports you can actually fix this by re-initializing with ezjail-admin update -p -i and perhaps -P afterwards. The problem arises if you had already created a jail _before_ you realized you forgot the -p switch. When you try to fetchindex it will tell you the error I originally posted. All you have to do on those jails that you created before fixing it with -p is just create the directory /var/ports inside each one of those jails. >From then on, the fetchindex will work and everything else will work as well. I'm guessing this would fix itself if you install a first port without fetching the index, which is probably what happened to me before when it seemed to start working. For the thread history i must conclude my last post on this was wrong and the actual way to fix it is by creating the directory in the problematic jails. Best, -- Alejandro Imass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports/distfiles via NFS or SSH
Peter Kryszkiewicz writes: > I have several machines networked using NFS mounts or SSH and scp. Only one > machine has internet connectivity - a laptop (machine vbear) with a wireless > card (I'm in a temporary location for a few weeks and only wireless is > available here). > > I tried to mount the ports tree on this machine to the other machines > (machine mfc for instance) with: > > #mfc> cd /usr > #mfc> mount_nfs vbear:/usr/ports ports > > and then installing the needed port on mfc. What happens is that the working > directories and the entire local ports tree gets written to /var, so that I > get /var/ports/usr/ports/devel/xxgdb/work and so on. /var fills up very > quickly and I soon get "disk full" errors. > > How can I avoid this? That doesn't happen by default, so you've already changed something, and resetting it to default may be all you need to do. By default, the work directories would be under (e.g.) /usr/ports/devel/xxgdb/work. You have probably set the WRKDIRPREFIX variable somewhere (possibly in make.conf?) and clearing it -- or setting it to somewhere local on the machine, but with more space, which would be faster -- will solve the problem. There are other variables that could cause similar symptoms, but WRKDIRPREFIX is the one I'd bet on at this point if I were you. > I believe the solution is to point the ports Makefile to a different (local) > working directory but point fetch to grab distfiles from the (remote) > laptop, but I'm not sure how to do this. Nothing in what you posted indicates that the distfiles are a problem for you, but if it is, you probably need to look at the DISTDIR variable, and figure out if you are grabbing distfiles to multiple places. Given that only one machine is capable of downloading distfiles in the first place, I think it's unlikely you have trouble in this area. Good luck. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports make search not working in jails
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Jason Helfman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:05:14AM -0400, Alejandro Imass thus spake: >> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Alejandro Imass wrote: >>> >>> Hi, [...] > > But does make search now work? > Today I noticed something interesting... If you SSH to the jail you get this when you try to make fetchindex: fetch: /var/ports/INDEX-8.bz2: open(): No such file or directory But is you jexec to the jail as root from the host then it fetches the index without any problems. It may be related to EzJail only because of the way it sets up the ports tree, the basejail and all that. But it may help other people with similar problems when using ports make search in jails. -- Alejandro Imass > -jgh > > -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports make search not working in jails
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Jason Helfman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:05:14AM -0400, Alejandro Imass thus spake: >> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Alejandro Imass wrote: >>> [...] >> Never mind. It's a specific couple of jails that doesn't work and I >> never tried to fetchindex again. >> I tried in other servers and jails and make fetchindex works perfectly. >> >> Thanks! >> > > But does make search now work? > Yes, absolutely! -- Alejandro Imass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports make search not working in jails
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:05:14AM -0400, Alejandro Imass thus spake: On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Alejandro Imass wrote: Hi, I have been using Jails and EzJail for a while now and everything works perfectly except for make search in the ports collection insisde a jail. Never mind. It's a specific couple of jails that doesn't work and I never tried to fetchindex again. I tried in other servers and jails and make fetchindex works perfectly. Thanks! But does make search now work? -jgh -- Jason Helfman System Administrator experts-exchange.com http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_4830110.html E4AD 7CF1 1396 27F6 79DD 4342 5E92 AD66 8C8C FBA5 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports make search not working in jails
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Alejandro Imass wrote: > Hi, > > I have been using Jails and EzJail for a while now and everything > works perfectly except for make search in the ports collection insisde > a jail. > Never mind. It's a specific couple of jails that doesn't work and I never tried to fetchindex again. I tried in other servers and jails and make fetchindex works perfectly. Thanks! -- Alejandro Imass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports/158374: databases/firebird21-client coredumps
Hi everyone, I'm posting this to the bug and to freebsd-questions in case anyone can help me out with advice on how to investigate further. This is in regards to: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/158374 I'm not sure if I jumped the gun on submitting the PR because the fix only partially fixed it and the next problem may or may not be related. = Actually I played with this further and maybe these things are pertinent: Everything works fine on a FreeBSD 9 VM I have: FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT #3: Sun Apr 3 20:41:14 PDT 2011 gcc (GCC) 4.2.2 20070831 prerelease [FreeBSD] I never had to patch anything and it is the exact same version of Firebird (and PHP). I did try patching the FreeBSD 8.2 machine (as described in the other PR) and it only sortof worked It connects to a firebird database and everything seems fine (it outputs data from the database) until the end of the script where it still segfaults. I should point out that php scripts that don't connect to firebird don't segfault and I tried eliminating all other extentsions. I'm not sure how to get a better backtrace (I tried compiling php/php-extenstions/firebird with debug and they aren't stripped): # gdb php php.core #0 0x00080193a2d2 in ?? () [New Thread 8017041c0 (LWP 100293)] # file /usr/local/lib/php/20090626-debug/interbase.so /usr/local/lib/php/20090626-debug/interbase.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked, not stripped /usr/local/lib/libfbclient.so.2.1.3: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked, not stripped gcc on the FreeBSD 8.2 box: gcc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070719 Thanks, Mike PS Firebird itself works fine if run from isql-fb. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports problem in an old system ver 4.9
On Thu, 26 May 2011 15:40:09 -0700 Chuck Swiger wrote: > On May 26, 2011, at 3:01 PM, David Banning wrote: > > I have an old FreeBSD 4.9 installation that I cannot upgrade. > > You've also got a FreeBSD installation which the ports tree does not > support. > > > I wanted to install something from the ports, but I am getting > > this error on almost every port; > > > > # make > > ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found > > ===> License check disabled, port has not defined LICENSE > > ===> Extracting for rsnapshot-1.3.1 > > /sbin/sha256: not found > > *** Error code 127 > > > > Stop in /usr/ports/sysutils/rsnapshot. > > I believe you can obtain a sha256 binary from GNU coreutils (although > GNU calls it sha256sum), and then install it to /sbin. It's not drop-in replacement. The FreeBSD version sensibly just outputs the hash when hashing from stdin, but the gnu version prints a trailing "-". It may be that the ports makefiles ignore the extra field, but it may require a wrapper script. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports problem in an old system ver 4.9
On May 26, 2011, at 3:01 PM, David Banning wrote: > I have an old FreeBSD 4.9 installation that I cannot upgrade. You've also got a FreeBSD installation which the ports tree does not support. > I wanted to install something from the ports, but I am getting > this error on almost every port; > > # make > ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found > ===> License check disabled, port has not defined LICENSE > ===> Extracting for rsnapshot-1.3.1 > /sbin/sha256: not found > *** Error code 127 > > Stop in /usr/ports/sysutils/rsnapshot. I believe you can obtain a sha256 binary from GNU coreutils (although GNU calls it sha256sum), and then install it to /sbin. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports and Packages
On 2 May 2011, at 18:46, Mohammed Gamal wrote: > 1-where to get php-5.3.6.tbz and mysql cuz my ports collections doesn't exist. > /usr/ports Install the ports tree. # portsnap fetch install > i have done installing apache2.2.17 from source but it doesn't start on boot > , i also added > apache22_enable="YES" to rc.conf but no effect. The port version installs a startup script in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ If you don't use the port version, you'll need to create your own Better to use the port version > 2- why i can not access root account through ssh2 ? Because it's disabled in the config as it's a security risk. Better to ssh as a normal user and use sudo/su as appropriate. If you really must, you can edit the config # vi /etc/ssh/sshd_config - barry ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports and Packages
Mohammed Gamal writes: > Hi ,uname -a output: FreeBSD hti-community.co.cc 8.2-RELEASE FreeBSD > 8.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Feb 18 02:24:46 UTC 2011 > r...@almeida.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 > > 1-where to get php-5.3.6.tbz and mysql cuz my ports collections doesn't exist. > /usr/ports You can install the ports collection, or install the package with "package_add -r" or from (for example) ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-8-stable/lang/php5-5.3.6.tbz You might want to look at the section on ports and packages in the handbook. These procedures are covered nicely. > i have done installing apache2.2.17 from source but it doesn't start on boot > , i also added > apache22_enable="YES" to rc.conf but no effect. If you don't install it yourself, you need to start it yourself. You can write an rc.d(8) script, but installing from a port (or package) would install one for you. > 2- why i can not access root account through ssh2 ? Because the PermitRootLogin option is disabled by default (for good security reasons). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports and Packages
On 2 May 2011, at 19:06, Barry Byrne wrote: > > On 2 May 2011, at 18:46, Mohammed Gamal wrote: > >> 1-where to get php-5.3.6.tbz and mysql cuz my ports collections doesn't >> exist. >> /usr/ports > > Install the ports tree. > > # portsnap fetch install Sorry - that should have been: # portsnap fetch extract - barry___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports: How do dependent ports upgrade when dependency shared lib version is bumped?
Yuri writes: > I recently updates the system. libatkmm-1.6.so.1 got bumped to > libatkmm-1.6.so.2, now inkscape fails: > /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libatkmm-1.6.so.1" not found, > required by "inkscape" > > What is the right behavior in such situation? Should all depending > packages be also automatically bumped? Or portupghrade should detect > the change and automatically upgrade dependent ports? There's no way to do it fully automatically, but porters try to do this by hand, by incrementing PORTREVISION for the dependent ports. Once that is done, portupgrade will pick it up automatically. However, porters will sometimes miss subtle dependencies, especially optional ones. In this case, I don't see a direct dependency of inkscape on atkmm, so I don't know how it should have been marked. In any case, inkscape was updated shortly after atkmm, so if you upgraded everything more recently, it looks like you should have gotten inkscape rebuilt after the atkmm change. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports: How do dependent ports upgrade when dependency shared lib version is bumped?
On Sat Dec 11 10, Yuri wrote: > I recently updates the system. libatkmm-1.6.so.1 got bumped to > libatkmm-1.6.so.2, now inkscape fails: > /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libatkmm-1.6.so.1" not found, > required by "inkscape" > > What is the right behavior in such situation? Should all depending > packages be also automatically bumped? Or portupghrade should detect the > change and automatically upgrade dependent ports? portupgrade -rfx atkmm atkmm should take care of the issue, although portupgrade -rf atkmm is probably ok too, unless atkmm takes multiple hours to build. as a workaround you could also add an entry to /etc/libmap.conf: libatkmm-1.6.so.1 libatkmm-1.6.so.2 if things in libatkmm haven't changed too much you might get away with it for now and delay the portupgrade to some time that's more convenient to you. cheers. alex > > Yuri > -- a13x ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports database
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:59:25 -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Polytropon wrote: > > > > tar -cf ports.tar /usr/port > > > > It should be, better suited: > > > > # cd /usr > > # tar cf ports.tar ports > > > > So one could do "tar xf ports.tar" in the target machine's /usr > > ... > > Better put the created tarfile somewhere other than in the directory > that is being tarred :) In thic case, the tarfile is created outside ports/, so it's not within the directory it is created in. But of course it's right: the resulting archive can be better picked up from a directory like /tmp, it should just have enough space available (allthough a compressed ports tree should be less than 500 MB). > and it might as well be compressed, something like: > > # cd /usr > # tar cf - ports | gzip > /var/tmp/ports.tgz That is possible - if space is an issue (and not time); it is also possible to do like this: # cd /usr # tar cjf /tmp/ports.tar.bz2 ports I think it will even be better compression ratio using the BZip2 algorithm (tar option j instead of z). One thing worth mentioning: The ports tree should be "clean" before transfering (which is not a problem if it has just been fetched). If you have already worked with it, make sure to have been running # make clean in the ports main directory, or simply delete all work/ subdirs that might contain tons of files not needed. The directories ports/distfiles/ and ports/packages should also be checked. As they contain compressed stuff, compressing them won't be much helpful. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports database
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 08:36:18PM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:07:45 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > Is that supposed to say this? > > > > tar -cf ports.tar /usr/port > > I think the - infront of the options string isn't neccessary for > tar, but it's optional in this case. So it is. All these years, I've completely overlooked the COMPATIBILITY section of the tar manpage. Thanks for the wake-up call. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpejCC5Ls3av.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ports database
On 29-8-2010 0:59, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Polytropon wrote: > >>> tar -cf ports.tar /usr/port >> >> It should be, better suited: >> >> # cd /usr >> # tar cf ports.tar ports >> >> So one could do "tar xf ports.tar" in the target machine's /usr >> ... > > Better put the created tarfile somewhere other than in the directory > that is being tarred :) That's the case in the above example... > and it might as well be compressed, something like: > > # cd /usr > # tar cf - ports | gzip > /var/tmp/ports.tgz how about: tar zcf ports.tar.gz ports ;-) Peter -- http://www.boosten.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports database
Polytropon wrote: > > tar -cf ports.tar /usr/port > > It should be, better suited: > > # cd /usr > # tar cf ports.tar ports > > So one could do "tar xf ports.tar" in the target machine's /usr > ... Better put the created tarfile somewhere other than in the directory that is being tarred :) and it might as well be compressed, something like: # cd /usr # tar cf - ports | gzip > /var/tmp/ports.tgz ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports database
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:07:45 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:53:46PM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > > > > At least you need one machine with Internet connection to get > > the ports update, e. g. using "portsnap fetch extract" or > > "make update" (using csup). Once done, tar cf ports.tar /usr/ports > > and transfer the file to the server without Internet connection; > > finally extract it there. > > Is that supposed to say this? > > tar -cf ports.tar /usr/port It should be, better suited: # cd /usr # tar cf ports.tar ports So one could do "tar xf ports.tar" in the target machine's /usr directory which would create /usr/ports in the version obtained; a previously existing ports/ subtree could be removed prior to extraction. I think the - infront of the options string isn't neccessary for tar, but it's optional in this case. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports database
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:53:46PM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > > At least you need one machine with Internet connection to get > the ports update, e. g. using "portsnap fetch extract" or > "make update" (using csup). Once done, tar cf ports.tar /usr/ports > and transfer the file to the server without Internet connection; > finally extract it there. Is that supposed to say this? tar -cf ports.tar /usr/port -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpGMNPDnaSv3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ports database
well, I could just update the database offline, then use another machine download right software and put them in /usr/ports/distfiles... --- On Thu, 8/26/10, Adam Vande More wrote: From: Adam Vande More Subject: Re: ports database To: "gahn" Cc: "freebsd general questions" Date: Thursday, August 26, 2010, 1:07 PM On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:13 PM, gahn wrote: Hi all: Is it possible to update the database of ports offline. It is nice to use "portsnap fetch/extract/update", but I can't use that since one of my server has no connection to the internet... If you have another machine available, it probably makes more sense to build the packages there and bring them over. A ports tree with no internet connection is not always useful. It doesn't contain the source necessary to build the packages. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports database
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:13 PM, gahn wrote: > Hi all: > > Is it possible to update the database of ports offline. > > It is nice to use "portsnap fetch/extract/update", but I can't use that > since one of my server has no connection to the internet... > If you have another machine available, it probably makes more sense to build the packages there and bring them over. A ports tree with no internet connection is not always useful. It doesn't contain the source necessary to build the packages. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports database
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:13:14 -0700 (PDT), gahn wrote: > Is it possible to update the database of ports offline. > > It is nice to use "portsnap fetch/extract/update", but I can't > use that since one of my server has no connection to the internet... At least you need one machine with Internet connection to get the ports update, e. g. using "portsnap fetch extract" or "make update" (using csup). Once done, tar cf ports.tar /usr/ports and transfer the file to the server without Internet connection; finally extract it there. Another way would be to use the FreeBSD release CD or DVD to get the RELEASE related ports tree from there. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports INDEX file layout?
Aiza writes: > Where can I find the description of the /usr/ports/INDEX-8 file? Try bsd.ports.mk. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports INDEX file
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:56:56 +0800 Fbsd8 wrote: > tree is no big deal, but I bet they don't do backups. If that's an issue, don't back it up. > That ports tree > directory is a large resource hog if you lift the blinders and look > at the big picture. > Just my 2 cents. Funnily enough that's not far off how much it cost to store it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports INDEX file
On 07/23/2010 01:56 AM, Fbsd8 wrote: > Now about my project. Since about 4.0 I stopped using the ports tree > method. I now all most totally use the package system. I do not upgrade > a RELEASE but instead use the "install from scratch" method about a few > weeks after a new RELEASE is published. So since the package system is > also re-build a new for each new RELEASE, I am all ways in sync. Now > there are exceptions to using packages. In my case php5 was changed 3 > RELEASES ago to no longer contain the apache module, so I now have to > compile php5 from the port. But to short cut the compile process, I > pre-install all of php5's dependents as packages. And of course I had to > figure out who they all were by hand the first time and built a script > that automates the whole procedure. I use cvsup at NEW RELEASE time to > populate the empty ports tree with ports-base. Then I use cvsup to > checkout the php5 make files and them "make install" and everything > comes together just fine. Why not build packages in-house then? You've already assumed the bootstrapping cost of a full ports tree checkout to do the dependency scan for php5 -- why not build the binary package (with your relevant make options) there as well? Then the rest of your machines can install *everything* from packages, and therefore won't require *any* of the ports tree, not even some subset of exceptions that need to be compiled. This would save even more resources, since you only compile php5 once, rather than once per machine. -- Benjamin Lee http://www.b1c1l1.com/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ports INDEX file
On 07/23/2010 03:56 AM, Fbsd8 wrote: > Now the Freebsd method of the 22,000 individual ports each with 3 to 5 > files is a method which has out lived its usefulness. TAKE NOTE: NO > FLAME WAR INTENDED. I just think a option should exist for us who don't > follow the bleeding edge. Sure to some people that big ports tree is no > big deal, but I bet they don't do backups. That ports tree directory is > a large resource hog if you lift the blinders and look at the big picture. Not really: # mkisofs -D -R -no-pad -iso-level 4 -V ports-$(date "+%Y%m%d%H%M%S") -o ports.iso /usr/ports # mkuzip -s 65536 -o ports.iso.uzip ports.iso # mdconfig -a -t vnode -u 7 -f ports.iso # kldload geom_uzip # mount -t cd9660 /dev/md7.uzip /usr/ports # du -sh ports ports.iso ports.iso.uzip # As of last update July 4th 834Mports 565Mports.iso 69Mports.iso.uzip Needs mkisofs and FreeBSD >= 7, but it reduces the impact of the tree drastically, and can speed up metadata operations, if your disk happens to be slower than your CPU, as the whole tree (or at least all the filesystem metadata) can be feasibly cached compressed in memory. It also ensures congruent package versions, if you process the tree on one machine and distribute it to all others. Plus, you can exclude the tree from backup entirely and just cache the compressed file someplace safe. I use this same trick with Gentoo's Portage tree, with squashfs, and observe similar benefits. -- Fuzzy love, -CyberLeo Technical Administrator CyberLeo.Net Webhosting http://www.CyberLeo.Net Furry Peace! - http://.fur.com/peace/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports INDEX file
On 7/23/10, Fbsd8 wrote: > b. f. wrote: >>> Benjamin Lee wrote: On 07/22/2010 06:20 PM, Fbsd8 wrote: ... >> > Well first thanks for the info you provided though it was all negative. I think that you were misinterpreting what I wrote if you think that it was all negative. > I will explain what my goal is. > > First though, I have verified that the /usr/ports/INDEX-8 file can be > gotten without the using cvs or cvsup. > > fetch -m "http://www.freebsd.org/ports/INDEX-8.bz2"; does if fact work > and the data on the file is as of 3 hours ago. So that indicates its > being kept current. The -m means that if the date of the remote file is > NOT newer then the local one, the download is bypassed> Yes, as long as the server supports this, and doesn't unnecessarily change the mtime of the file. Minus some variable expansions, this is basically what the fetchindex target does. If you don't care about hard-coding version numbers, etc., then you might as well not invoke make at all, and just do what you're doing, because it's faster. ... > compile php5 from the port. But to short cut the compile process, I > pre-install all of php5's dependents as packages. And of course I had to > figure out who they all were by hand the first time and built a script > that automates the whole procedure. I use cvsup at NEW RELEASE time to > populate the empty ports tree with ports-base. Then I use cvsup to > checkout the php5 make files and them "make install" and everything > comes together just fine. You may be interested in using ports-mgmt/portmaster ( a shell script with minimal dependencies), which can do something similar to what you are trying to do with the --index-only, -P/-PP, and --packages-build flags. > Now the Freebsd method of the 22,000 individual ports each with 3 to 5 > files is a method which has out lived its usefulness. TAKE NOTE: NO There is no doubt that the increasing size of the tree, and the fact that some parts of the build infrastructure don't scale well, have created some challenges. But I hardly think that it has outlived its usefulness. > FLAME WAR INTENDED. I just think a option should exist for us who don't > follow the bleeding edge. Sure to some people that big ports tree is no Well, the bleeding edge versus snapshot issue is a bit different from the debate about the size and modularity of the ports tree. > big deal, but I bet they don't do backups. That ports tree directory is > a large resource hog if you lift the blinders and look at the big picture. I guess it depends upon the constraints that you are operating under. But fetching a new index is going to take about as much network traffic as an update of the ports tree with csup. > So since I have a method all ready working as I explained above, I am > collecting information on the elements needed to write a shell script > port application based on the method already described. Figure I will > use cvsup to populate the port-base and checkout just the "parent" port > make files. Read the INDEX file to automate finding the parent port > dependents and reading the /var/db/pkg to skip an dependents all ready > installed and then launch pkg_add to install the dependents and on any > package failures cycle back and use cvsup to also checkout its make > files, before issuing the "make install" on the parent. Just bear in mind that the default INDEX contains the dependencies for ports built with default options. Changing the options may result in different dependencies. Consider using portmaster. > Along this same line of thought, > Another area I have problems with is why don't the port make system go > and checkout any dependent ports missing make files instead of halting > like it does now. The ports system wasn't designed to meet your objectives. Delegating authority to perform bursts of unsupervised network activity at unpredictable intervals would probably be considered a problem by many users. And some tasks require the entirety of the tree to be present. > > When installing a package it will auto install all of it dependents. > There is interest in work with "fat packages" to do something like you describe: "Complete (a.k.a. Fat) packages Suggested Summer of Code 2010 project idea Technical contact: Brooks Davis When bootstrapping systems it would be useful to be able to create a single package file that contains one or more packages and all the required dependent packages. This is conceptually similar to, but different from PC-BSD's PBI package format. PBI's contain a private copy of all dependencies, fat packages would contain each individual package and once installed it would be as though each package was individually installed in the usual manner. This project would consist of additions to the pkg_tools to support creation and installation of a new package file format and to ports to build these packages. Requirements: Strong knowledge of C code. A basic understanding of the inner workings of the ports tr
Re: ports INDEX file
b. f. wrote: Benjamin Lee wrote: On 07/22/2010 06:20 PM, Fbsd8 wrote: I have a pristine install of 8.0. There is no /usr/ports directory yet. I am trying to use the "portcheckout" port and the "porteasy" port to just populate the ports tree with only the ports I use. Problem is in both cases the above ports require an existing INDEX file to process and since I have none they don't work. How can I just download the ports INDEX file? Portsnap is not a solution. I see in the source of porteasy that its fetching http://www.freebsd.org/ports/INDEX-8.bz2 How can I verify this? Usually the index file is placed at $INDEXDIR/$INDEXFILE, as defined in $PORTSDIR/Mk/bsd.port.mk. In your case, by default, that would be /usr/ports/INDEX-8. As Matthew asked, do you really want to do this? By modern standards, the space required for the ports tree is modest (~550MB uncompressed), and you can learn a lot about what's available and how things work by looking through it. Plus you save the time required to implement this partial ports tree approach. If you really need to save the disk space, and don't have other special requirements, then considering using binary packages instead of compiling from source. If you do have special requirements -- e.g., you need to build ports with non-default options or special flags, or you don't trust foreign binary packages (in that case, though, you should probably be prepared to do a lot of work auditing the source code as well), and you don't have at least one machine with the required disk space, then maybe this approach is worthwhile. However, that seems unlikely. If you pursue the partial ports tree approach, you don't need to make or fetch an INDEX(which, although it may be a useful summary, may be inappropriate for parsing dependencies for ports built with non-default options), and you don't need to use either of the ports that you mentioned: as someone else said, you could just write a shell script to fetch the necessary infrastructure Makefiles (those in /usr/ports/Mk and the needed category subdirectories), and the desired port and it's dependencies, using cvs(1) (but you have to choose a server that permits anonymous cvs access, and learn cvs), csup(1) (configured to use a suitable cvsup server using the ports-all collection and the -i flag, which would permit you to grab only parts of that collection), or even an http client like fetch(1) (exploiting the fact that single ports can be downloaded in tarball form from cvsweb.freebsd.org in links of the form: http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/$CATEGORY/$PORT/$PORT.tar.gz?tarball=1 and single Makefiles via other links). Well first thanks for the info you provided though it was all negative. I will explain what my goal is. First though, I have verified that the /usr/ports/INDEX-8 file can be gotten without the using cvs or cvsup. fetch -m "http://www.freebsd.org/ports/INDEX-8.bz2"; does if fact work and the data on the file is as of 3 hours ago. So that indicates its being kept current. The -m means that if the date of the remote file is NOT newer then the local one, the download is bypassed. Now about my project. Since about 4.0 I stopped using the ports tree method. I now all most totally use the package system. I do not upgrade a RELEASE but instead use the "install from scratch" method about a few weeks after a new RELEASE is published. So since the package system is also re-build a new for each new RELEASE, I am all ways in sync. Now there are exceptions to using packages. In my case php5 was changed 3 RELEASES ago to no longer contain the apache module, so I now have to compile php5 from the port. But to short cut the compile process, I pre-install all of php5's dependents as packages. And of course I had to figure out who they all were by hand the first time and built a script that automates the whole procedure. I use cvsup at NEW RELEASE time to populate the empty ports tree with ports-base. Then I use cvsup to checkout the php5 make files and them "make install" and everything comes together just fine. Now the Freebsd method of the 22,000 individual ports each with 3 to 5 files is a method which has out lived its usefulness. TAKE NOTE: NO FLAME WAR INTENDED. I just think a option should exist for us who don't follow the bleeding edge. Sure to some people that big ports tree is no big deal, but I bet they don't do backups. That ports tree directory is a large resource hog if you lift the blinders and look at the big picture. I don't need a reason to convince the budget handlers for money to buy bigger and faster cpu machines or larger disk farms. I come from a world where one has to make do with what one has at hand. So in that light. Anything that can be done to reduce the size of the ports tree is money saved and resources conserved. And I bet I am not alone in the Freebsd world who believes in this. So since I have a method all ready working as I expl
Re: ports INDEX file
>Benjamin Lee wrote: >> On 07/22/2010 06:20 PM, Fbsd8 wrote: >>> I have a pristine install of 8.0. >>> There is no /usr/ports directory yet. >>> I am trying to use the "portcheckout" port and the "porteasy" port to >>> just populate the ports tree with only the ports I use. >>> >>> Problem is in both cases the above ports require an existing INDEX file >>> to process and since I have none they don't work. >>> >>> How can I just download the ports INDEX file? >>> Portsnap is not a solution. >I see in the source of porteasy that its fetching >http://www.freebsd.org/ports/INDEX-8.bz2 > >How can I verify this? Usually the index file is placed at $INDEXDIR/$INDEXFILE, as defined in $PORTSDIR/Mk/bsd.port.mk. In your case, by default, that would be /usr/ports/INDEX-8. As Matthew asked, do you really want to do this? By modern standards, the space required for the ports tree is modest (~550MB uncompressed), and you can learn a lot about what's available and how things work by looking through it. Plus you save the time required to implement this partial ports tree approach. If you really need to save the disk space, and don't have other special requirements, then considering using binary packages instead of compiling from source. If you do have special requirements -- e.g., you need to build ports with non-default options or special flags, or you don't trust foreign binary packages (in that case, though, you should probably be prepared to do a lot of work auditing the source code as well), and you don't have at least one machine with the required disk space, then maybe this approach is worthwhile. However, that seems unlikely. If you pursue the partial ports tree approach, you don't need to make or fetch an INDEX(which, although it may be a useful summary, may be inappropriate for parsing dependencies for ports built with non-default options), and you don't need to use either of the ports that you mentioned: as someone else said, you could just write a shell script to fetch the necessary infrastructure Makefiles (those in /usr/ports/Mk and the needed category subdirectories), and the desired port and it's dependencies, using cvs(1) (but you have to choose a server that permits anonymous cvs access, and learn cvs), csup(1) (configured to use a suitable cvsup server using the ports-all collection and the -i flag, which would permit you to grab only parts of that collection), or even an http client like fetch(1) (exploiting the fact that single ports can be downloaded in tarball form from cvsweb.freebsd.org in links of the form: http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/$CATEGORY/$PORT/$PORT.tar.gz?tarball=1 and single Makefiles via other links). b. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports INDEX file
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:14:12AM +0100, Matthew Seaman thus spake: On 23/07/2010 02:20:02, Fbsd8 wrote: I have a pristine install of 8.0. There is no /usr/ports directory yet. I am trying to use the "portcheckout" port and the "porteasy" port to just populate the ports tree with only the ports I use. Portcheckout really won't grab all the dependencies that are needed. I've filed a PR for this. I wrote up a quick script that has the same output that grabs all the dependencies. Portcheckout doesn't grab dependencies of dependencies (ie. make all-depends-list) I've heard of a few people trying to do things like this, and mostly the consensus is that's it's more trouble than it's worth. Good luck. In order to make your cut-down tree work properly, you'ld have to maintain custom versions of /usr/ports/Makefile and which ever of the category Makefiles you use (ie. the Makefiles one level down the tree). Problem is in both cases the above ports require an existing INDEX file to process and since I have none they don't work. How can I just download the ports INDEX file? Portsnap is not a solution. You can use my ports-mgmt/p5-FreeBSD-Portindex port to build an INDEX file -- ideally you should get it to run without complaints about missing dependencies and such, but if you don't it will do the best it can to produce something resembling an INDEX. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports INDEX file
On 23/07/2010 02:20:02, Fbsd8 wrote: > I have a pristine install of 8.0. > There is no /usr/ports directory yet. > I am trying to use the "portcheckout" port and the "porteasy" port to > just populate the ports tree with only the ports I use. I've heard of a few people trying to do things like this, and mostly the consensus is that's it's more trouble than it's worth. Good luck. In order to make your cut-down tree work properly, you'ld have to maintain custom versions of /usr/ports/Makefile and which ever of the category Makefiles you use (ie. the Makefiles one level down the tree). > Problem is in both cases the above ports require an existing INDEX file > to process and since I have none they don't work. > > How can I just download the ports INDEX file? > Portsnap is not a solution. You can use my ports-mgmt/p5-FreeBSD-Portindex port to build an INDEX file -- ideally you should get it to run without complaints about missing dependencies and such, but if you don't it will do the best it can to produce something resembling an INDEX. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ports INDEX file
Benjamin Lee wrote: On 07/22/2010 06:20 PM, Fbsd8 wrote: I have a pristine install of 8.0. There is no /usr/ports directory yet. I am trying to use the "portcheckout" port and the "porteasy" port to just populate the ports tree with only the ports I use. Problem is in both cases the above ports require an existing INDEX file to process and since I have none they don't work. How can I just download the ports INDEX file? Portsnap is not a solution. Well, The INDEX file is a component of the ports tree distribution. If you choose not to use the supported method of installing it (i.e. installing the ports tree), you'll have to create your own. Hint: Per ports(7), take a look at the definition of the 'fetchindex' target. I see in the source of porteasy that its fetching http://www.freebsd.org/ports/INDEX-8.bz2 How can I verify this? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports INDEX file
On 07/22/2010 06:20 PM, Fbsd8 wrote: > I have a pristine install of 8.0. > There is no /usr/ports directory yet. > I am trying to use the "portcheckout" port and the "porteasy" port to > just populate the ports tree with only the ports I use. > > Problem is in both cases the above ports require an existing INDEX file > to process and since I have none they don't work. > > How can I just download the ports INDEX file? > Portsnap is not a solution. Well, The INDEX file is a component of the ports tree distribution. If you choose not to use the supported method of installing it (i.e. installing the ports tree), you'll have to create your own. Hint: Per ports(7), take a look at the definition of the 'fetchindex' target. -- Benjamin Lee http://www.b1c1l1.com/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ports INDEX file
Tim Daneliuk wrote: On 7/22/2010 8:20 PM, Fbsd8 wrote: I have a pristine install of 8.0. There is no /usr/ports directory yet. I am trying to use the "portcheckout" port and the "porteasy" port to just populate the ports tree with only the ports I use. Problem is in both cases the above ports require an existing INDEX file to process and since I have none they don't work. How can I just download the ports INDEX file? Portsnap is not a solution. ___ You can use 'csup' to get the ports tree down. You'll find the relevant config file (assuming you installed the source tree) at: /usr/src/share/examples/cvsup Not interested in the ports tree. Just the INDEX file ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports INDEX file
On 7/22/2010 8:20 PM, Fbsd8 wrote: > I have a pristine install of 8.0. > There is no /usr/ports directory yet. > I am trying to use the "portcheckout" port and the "porteasy" port to > just populate the ports tree with only the ports I use. > > Problem is in both cases the above ports require an existing INDEX file > to process and since I have none they don't work. > > How can I just download the ports INDEX file? > Portsnap is not a solution. > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" You can use 'csup' to get the ports tree down. You'll find the relevant config file (assuming you installed the source tree) at: /usr/src/share/examples/cvsup -- Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports PHP 4.4.9 - GD Extension
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 10:41:55AM -0400, Grant Peel wrote: > Hi all, > > I am attempting to insall the GD PHP extension on FreeBSD 8 and am getting > this at build time. (I need to have a php4 and mysql 4 server for > compatability reasons). > > It appears that the PNG version the port is trying to build has a security > issue. How can I work arround this (I really need the GD extension). > > Any help would be appreciated. > > ds9# pwd > /usr/ports/lang/php4-extensions > > ===> png-1.4.1_1 is forbidden: vulnerable to remote buffer overflow. png is currently at version 1.4.3 in ports. Try updating your ports tree and give it another go. Dan -- Daniel Bye _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) - against HTML, vCards and X - proprietary attachments in e-mail / \ pgpDHcEbj0W2p.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ports issue with gegl
On Jun 25 20:21, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > ?? Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:06:21 -0700 > Chip Camden ??: > > > Greetings. > > > > uname -a: > > > > FreeBSD libertas.local.camdensoftware.com 8.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD > > 8.1-PRERELEASE #1: Thu Jun 24 13:38:09 PDT 2010 > > sterl...@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC > > amd64 > > > > As of a portsnap fetch update this morning, the gegl port will not > > build > > > > ===> gegl-0.1.2_1 is marked as broken: ffmpeg support is currently > > broken. > > > > gimp depends on gegl, so the latest update to gimp will not build. > > > > Known problem? > > > > reconfigure graphics/gegl whit out ffmpeg support > > cd /user/ports/graphics/gegl && make WITHOUT_FFMPEG=yes config > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" Cheers! I should have figured that was an option, so sorry about the noise. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com | http://chipsquips.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports issue with gegl
В Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:06:21 -0700 Chip Camden пишет: > Greetings. > > uname -a: > > FreeBSD libertas.local.camdensoftware.com 8.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD > 8.1-PRERELEASE #1: Thu Jun 24 13:38:09 PDT 2010 > sterl...@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC > amd64 > > As of a portsnap fetch update this morning, the gegl port will not > build > > ===> gegl-0.1.2_1 is marked as broken: ffmpeg support is currently > broken. > > gimp depends on gegl, so the latest update to gimp will not build. > > Known problem? > reconfigure graphics/gegl whit out ffmpeg support cd /user/ports/graphics/gegl && make WITHOUT_FFMPEG=yes config ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
