Re: /etc/make.conf && CURDIR
El día Monday, June 10, 2013 a las 03:03:07AM +0930, Shane Ambler escribió:
> > it works, but if I let away the '*' in the line, i.e.
> >
> > .if ${.CURDIR:M*/multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod}
> > SYSDIR=/usr/home/guru/head/src/sys
> > .endif
> >
> > the 'make' asks me to set SYSDIR:
> >
> > ...
> You'll find the trailing asterix is a wildcard to match any sub dirs.
> When building CURDIR only contains multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod - CURDIR
> will be something like
> /usr/ports/multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod/work/cuse4-bsd-kmod-0.1.27/
> The pre and post * matches all paths with multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod in
> them - usually pretty unique when building within the ports dirs.
I was thinking the same re/ wildcard; on the other hand, I always saw
hints like this for setting certain values in make.conf based on the
ports' name, liek for example:
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/category/port}
USE_GCC=any
.endif
those examples never used the * (i.e. /category/port/* ); that's why
until today I was thinking that the expresion means already "if
/category/port is part of current dir", perhaps I have to read a make
manual for this again...
thanks for your feedback in any case
matthias
--
Sent from my FreeBSD netbook
Matthias Apitz, , http://www.unixarea.de/ f: +49-170-4527211
UNIX since V7 on PDP-11, UNIX on mainframe since ESER 1055 (IBM /370)
UNIX on x86 since SVR4.2 UnixWare 2.1.2, FreeBSD since 2.2.5
___
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: /etc/make.conf && CURDIR
On 09/06/2013 23:46, Matthias Apitz wrote:
Hello,
I have the kernel sources not in /usr/src/sys, but elsewhere; I can
not get set correctly SYSDIR via /etc/make.conf for some ports (or
other values like USE_GCC, ...);
if I have in /etc/make.conf these lines:
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod*}
SYSDIR=/usr/home/guru/head/src/sys
> .endif
it works, but if I let away the '*' in the line, i.e.
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod}
SYSDIR=/usr/home/guru/head/src/sys
> .endif
the 'make' asks me to set SYSDIR:
# make clean install ... building shared library libcuse4bsd.so.1
gzip -cn cuse4bsd.3 > cuse4bsd.3.gz make -f
/usr/ports/multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod/work/cuse4bsd-kmod-0.1.27/Makefile.kmod
all "/usr/share/mk/bsd.kmod.mk", line 12: Unable to locate the kernel
source tree. Set SYSDIR to override. *** [all] Error code 1
Why is this? Thanks. The system runs 10-CUR r250588 i386.
You'll find the trailing asterix is a wildcard to match any sub dirs.
When building CURDIR only contains multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod - CURDIR
will be something like
/usr/ports/multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod/work/cuse4-bsd-kmod-0.1.27/
The pre and post * matches all paths with multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod in
them - usually pretty unique when building within the ports dirs.
___
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"
/etc/make.conf && CURDIR
Hello,
I have the kernel sources not in /usr/src/sys, but elsewhere;
I can not get set correctly SYSDIR via /etc/make.conf for some
ports (or other values like USE_GCC, ...);
if I have in /etc/make.conf these lines:
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod*}
SYSDIR=/usr/home/guru/head/src/sys
.endif
it works, but if I let away the '*' in the line, i.e.
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod}
SYSDIR=/usr/home/guru/head/src/sys
.endif
the 'make' asks me to set SYSDIR:
# make clean install
...
building shared library libcuse4bsd.so.1
gzip -cn cuse4bsd.3 > cuse4bsd.3.gz
make -f
/usr/ports/multimedia/cuse4bsd-kmod/work/cuse4bsd-kmod-0.1.27/Makefile.kmod all
"/usr/share/mk/bsd.kmod.mk", line 12: Unable to locate the kernel source tree.
Set SYSDIR to override.
*** [all] Error code 1
Why is this? Thanks. The system runs 10-CUR r250588 i386.
matthias
--
Matthias Apitz | /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign: www.asciiribbon.org
E-mail: g...@unixarea.de | \ / - No HTML/RTF in E-mail
WWW: http://www.unixarea.de/ | X - No proprietary attachments
phone: +49-170-4527211 | / \ - Respect for open standards
___
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: WITHOUT_MODULES in /etc/make.conf doesn't work
> No, I'm just borderline sure that WITHOUT_MODULES works > the same way as MODULES_OVERRIDE, that is it looks in > top directory in /usr/src/sys/modules/ and ulpt is in > /usr/src/sys/modules/usb/ulpt > Speaking of RAM savings, things you would always load > should be compiled in kernel, modules per design take > more RAM than compiled in stuff. I suppose with a generic kernel where many drivers would be put in modules and not the kernel proper, RAM would be less cluttered. I think that rationale was used with Linux, and I believe kernel modules came to Linux before FreeBSD and to FreeBSD before NetBSD, am not sure about other BSDs. I remember when it was necessary to "insmod hpfs" to mount an HPFS partition from Linux, it was not done automatically. Also, when adding a new device and driver, just that module could be compiled without recompiling the rest of the kernel: useful perhaps when installing a prefabricated Linux distribution. But when running on one specific computer, I see the rationale for NO_MODULES=yes. Now is there any way to prevent ulpt.ko from loading when a USB printer is connected? 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: WITHOUT_MODULES in /etc/make.conf doesn't work
> Sort of a dirty trick that you have to use usb/ulpt as > opposed to ulpt, and a deficiency in the documentation. No, I'm just borderline sure that WITHOUT_MODULES works the same way as MODULES_OVERRIDE, that is it looks in top directory in /usr/src/sys/modules/ and ulpt is in /usr/src/sys/modules/usb/ulpt Speaking of RAM savings, things you would always load should be compiled in kernel, modules per design take more RAM than compiled in stuff. -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/WITHOUT-MODULES-in-etc-make-conf-doesn-t-work-tp5723832p5724110.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: WITHOUT_MODULES in /etc/make.conf doesn't work
from Polytropon : > Yes, /etc/src.conf uses WITHOUT_* on a per-module basis, so you need > to explicitely name the modules not to build. > But you're right, there's only WITHOUT_USB (for not building the > USB-related parts), so going with kernel configuration would be > a good point to start -- the more precise you can define your > test setting and its variables, the better you can diagnose the > problem. > In /etc/make.conf, you could use MODULES_OVERRIDE to define the > set of modules you want (because only _those_ will then be > build) and keeping their functionality out of the kernel. In > this case, you have control over your test setting using the > modules. > The same files offers NO_MODULES=yes to avoid building modules > at all (use custom kernel instead). > If you decide to use WITHOUT_MODULES, you can define the set of > modules you want to avoid building, everything else will be > built. > > Would > > WITHOUT_MODULES= ulpt > > work better in /etc/src.conf than in /etc/make.conf ? > No, /etc/src.conf as (according to its manpage) a defined set of > variables that will be considered when building (or _not_ building) > certain modules. > > Besides the toxic (?) ulpt.ko, there are a lot of modules that > > would never be used on my hardware, and other modules that could > > be built in the kernel as non-modules (such as support for msdosfs > > and ext2fs, which I don't want to be without). > That's a good setting for using a custom kernel and not even > building the modules for the non-used functionalities. :-) I suppose modules save RAM by being loaded only when needed, but see the virtue of NO_MODULES=yes or MODULES_OVERRIDE in combination with putting everything needed in kernel config. Building WITHOUT_USB would cause a severe loss of functionality, USB sticks, USB hard drives, even USB mice and keyboards wouldn't work. from Jakub Lach : > Try with: > WITHOUT_MODULES= usb/ulpt I'll have to try that on my build/update of FreeBSD 9.0_STABLE i386 on USB stick. Thanks for the hint! This would be from the USB stick but with source base directory /STABLE1/usr/src (on hard drive). I had already built FreeBSD 9.0_STABLE i386 on the USB stick from FreeBSD 9.0_STABLE amd64, and was successful booting that USB stick. Sort of a dirty trick that you have to use usb/ulpt as opposed to ulpt, and a deficiency in the documentation. Now is there any way to prevent ulpt.ko from loading when a USB printer is connected? 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: WITHOUT_MODULES in /etc/make.conf doesn't work
and consider using MODULES_OVERRIDE if you will precisely know your needs. -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/WITHOUT-MODULES-in-etc-make-conf-doesn-t-work-tp5723832p5723883.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: WITHOUT_MODULES in /etc/make.conf doesn't work
Try with: WITHOUT_MODULES= usb/ulpt -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/WITHOUT-MODULES-in-etc-make-conf-doesn-t-work-tp5723832p5723880.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: WITHOUT_MODULES in /etc/make.conf doesn't work
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 04:54:05 -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote: > from Polytropon : > > > On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:59:44 -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > > How does one, when building the kernel, prevent building one or more > > > modules? > > > Use the "new" means of /etc/src.conf (see "man src.conf" for > > details) to prevent the building of modules. > > I looked through "man make.conf" and "man src.conf" and couldn't find what > you mean by the "new" means of /etc/src.conf . > > I saw references to WITHOUT_MODULES in "man make.conf" but not "man src.conf". Yes, /etc/src.conf uses WITHOUT_* on a per-module basis, so you need to explicitely name the modules not to build. But you're right, there's only WITHOUT_USB (for not building the USB-related parts), so going with kernel configuration would be a good point to start -- the more precise you can define your test setting and its variables, the better you can diagnose the problem. In /etc/make.conf, you could use MODULES_OVERRIDE to define the set of modules you want (because only _those_ will then be build) and keeping their functionality out of the kernel. In this case, you have control over your test setting using the modules. The same files offers NO_MODULES=yes to avoid building modules at all (use custom kernel instead). If you decide to use WITHOUT_MODULES, you can define the set of modules you want to avoid building, everything else will be built. > Would > WITHOUT_MODULES= ulpt > work better in /etc/src.conf than in /etc/make.conf ? No, /etc/src.conf as (according to its manpage) a defined set of variables that will be considered when building (or _not_ building) certain modules. > Besides the toxic (?) ulpt.ko, there are a lot of modules that > would never be used on my hardware, and other modules that could > be built in the kernel as non-modules (such as support for msdosfs > and ext2fs, which I don't want to be without). That's a good setting for using a custom kernel and not even building the modules for the non-used functionalities. :-) -- 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: WITHOUT_MODULES in /etc/make.conf doesn't work
from Polytropon : > On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:59:44 -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > How does one, when building the kernel, prevent building one or more > > modules? > Use the "new" means of /etc/src.conf (see "man src.conf" for > details) to prevent the building of modules. I looked through "man make.conf" and "man src.conf" and couldn't find what you mean by the "new" means of /etc/src.conf . I saw references to WITHOUT_MODULES in "man make.conf" but not "man src.conf". Would WITHOUT_MODULES= ulpt work better in /etc/src.conf than in /etc/make.conf ? > > I have > > WITHOUT_MODULES= ulpt > > in /etc/make.conf > > but ulpt.ko always appears in /boot/kernel directory. > > For now, I want to build all modules except for this one, but > > perhaps I could keep everything in kernel config and not build modules. > Also a possibility - for "best control" case, combine both, e. g. > a custom kernel that only includes what you explicitely specity, > and src.conf to avoid building of modules you're intendedly not > going to need. Besides the toxic (?) ulpt.ko, there are a lot of modules that would never be used on my hardware, and other modules that could be built in the kernel as non-modules (such as support for msdosfs and ext2fs, which I don't want to be without). from Wojciech Puchar : > > I think MODULES_OVERRIDE is for building only a few modules instead of a > > large number of modules? > true. definitely works for me. > > Alternatively, how can I prevent ulpt.ko from automatically loading when I > > connect a USB printer (HP) that is supposed to work with ugen but not ulpt. > devd.conf? I looked through /etc/devd.conf and associated man pages (devd, devd.conf), couldn't immediately find how to prevent ulpt.ko from loading. Maybe I could find it if I connect the printer and go through print/hplip documentation? Either the printer is screwy, hplip is screwy, and/or the BSD adaptations to hplip are screwy, and I can't tell which. 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: WITHOUT_MODULES in /etc/make.conf doesn't work
I think MODULES_OVERRIDE is for building only a few modules instead of a large number of modules? true. definitely works for me. Alternatively, how can I prevent ulpt.ko from automatically loading when I connect a USB printer (HP) that is supposed to work with ugen but not ulpt. devd.conf? ___ 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: WITHOUT_MODULES in /etc/make.conf doesn't work
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:59:44 -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote: > How does one, when building the kernel, prevent building one or more modules? Use the "new" means of /etc/src.conf (see "man src.conf" for details) to prevent the building of modules. > I have > WITHOUT_MODULES= ulpt > in /etc/make.conf > but ulpt.ko always appears in /boot/kernel directory. > > For now, I want to build all modules except for this one, but > perhaps I could keep everything in kernel config and not build modules. Also a possibility - for "best control" case, combine both, e. g. a custom kernel that only includes what you explicitely specity, and src.conf to avoid building of modules you're intendedly not going to need. -- 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"
WITHOUT_MODULES in /etc/make.conf doesn't work
How does one, when building the kernel, prevent building one or more modules? I have WITHOUT_MODULES= ulpt in /etc/make.conf but ulpt.ko always appears in /boot/kernel directory. For now, I want to build all modules except for this one, but perhaps I could keep everything in kernel config and not build modules. I think MODULES_OVERRIDE is for building only a few modules instead of a large number of modules? I can't see any way one would use both MODULES_OVERRIDE and WITHOUT_MODULES at the same time. Alternatively, how can I prevent ulpt.ko from automatically loading when I connect a USB printer (HP) that is supposed to work with ugen but not ulpt. What would a FreeBSD user do in order to be able to be able to connect USB printers by either ugen or ulpt, might have two or more printers, using one at a time? I have "device ulpt" line commented out in kernel config. 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: buildkernel not honoring WITH_MODULES from make.conf ?
On 11/25/11 7:43 PM, Terrence Koeman wrote: > On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 at 19:27:54, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > >> On 11/24/11 4:17 PM, b. f. wrote: >>> >>> If you are going to build most of the modules, but only want to exclude >>> a few, then add the directories of the modules to be excluded (relative >>> to /usr/src/sys/modules) to WITHOUT_MODULES, for example in >>> /etc/make.conf. If you are only going to build a few modules, and want >>> to exclude the majority of the modules, then add the directories of the >>> modules that are to be built to MODULES_OVERRIDE. For no modules at >>> all, set NO_MODULES. See /usr/src/sys/modules/Makefile and >>> /usr/src/sys/conf/kern.post.mk for details. You may also save some time >>> by using one of your faster machines to build the OS for the slower >>> machines. >>> >>> b. >> >> Have I misunderstood WITH_MODULES' use ? > > The answer is in the post you quoted: use MODULES_OVERRIDE. > Meh, I was so sure I was supposed to use "WITH_MODULES" in opposition with "WITHOUT_MODULES" that I totally overlooked "MODULES_OVERRIDE". Ty, that's going to solve my problem. ___ 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: buildkernel not honoring WITH_MODULES from make.conf ? (was: Re: Quick build of stripped-down kernel)
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 at 19:27:54, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > On 11/24/11 4:17 PM, b. f. wrote: >> >> If you are going to build most of the modules, but only want to exclude >> a few, then add the directories of the modules to be excluded (relative >> to /usr/src/sys/modules) to WITHOUT_MODULES, for example in >> /etc/make.conf. If you are only going to build a few modules, and want >> to exclude the majority of the modules, then add the directories of the >> modules that are to be built to MODULES_OVERRIDE. For no modules at >> all, set NO_MODULES. See /usr/src/sys/modules/Makefile and >> /usr/src/sys/conf/kern.post.mk for details. You may also save some time >> by using one of your faster machines to build the OS for the slower >> machines. >> >> b. > > Have I misunderstood WITH_MODULES' use ? The answer is in the post you quoted: use MODULES_OVERRIDE. -- Regards, T. Koeman, MTh/BSc/BPsy; Technical Monk MediaMonks B.V. (www.mediamonks.com) Please quote relevant replies in correspondence. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
buildkernel not honoring WITH_MODULES from make.conf ? (was: Re: Quick build of stripped-down kernel)
On 11/24/11 4:17 PM, b. f. wrote: > > If you are going to build most of the modules, but only want to > exclude a few, then add the directories of the modules to be excluded > (relative to /usr/src/sys/modules) to WITHOUT_MODULES, for example in > /etc/make.conf. If you are only going to build a few modules, and want > to exclude the majority of the modules, then add the directories of > the modules that are to be built to MODULES_OVERRIDE. For no modules > at all, set NO_MODULES. See /usr/src/sys/modules/Makefile and > /usr/src/sys/conf/kern.post.mk for details. You may also save some > time by using one of your faster machines to build the OS for the > slower machines. > > b. Hijacking this thread to report what might or might not be a problem on my part. On a 8.2-RELEASE box, I have set the following in /etc/make.conf: KERNCONF=MULTI WITH_MODULES=geom_label if_lagg linprocfs linsysfs linux mfi_linux I have then run, from /usr/src : make buildkernel make installkernel I notice, at the end of installkernel: [snip] ===> xl (install) install -o root -g wheel -m 555 if_xl.ko /boot/kernel install -o root -g wheel -m 555 if_xl.ko.symbols /boot/kernel ===> zfs (install) install -o root -g wheel -m 555 zfs.ko /boot/kernel install -o root -g wheel -m 555 zfs.ko.symbols /boot/kernel Why does it build and install these modules (and a whole lot of other ones) although they're not part of my WITH_MODULES list ? kldstat reports: Id Refs AddressSize Name 1 21 0x8010 999620 kernel 21 0x80a9a000 bc10 geom_label.ko 31 0x80aa6000 1358 mfi_linux.ko 44 0x80aa8000 42558linux.ko 51 0x80c22000 3ee0 linprocfs.ko 61 0x80c26000 a11 linsysfs.ko 71 0x80c27000 4f2c if_lagg.ko My issue here is that I totally don't need if_xl for example and would really love for it to be neither built nor installed. Have I misunderstood WITH_MODULES' use ? ___ 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"
Custom compiler/{C,CXX,F}FLAGS and /etc/make.conf - how to?
Dear ALL, The subject says it all. I'm trying to push out of my box every ounce of performance, perhaps even with (yet experimental) path64 compiler. So my question is as simple as that: what is the precise spell to put in make.comf to get (while not disrupting the ports infrastructure!) -march=amdfam10 if compiler is lang/gcc46 and -march=barcelona for path64 (perhaps yet another flags as well if toolchain supports them)? TIA, Vladimir ___ 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: Possible obsolete entries in /etc/make.conf
On 04/09/2011 12:27, Carmel wrote: > WITH_MOZILLA=firefox This seems to be obsolete -- there's no choice to use firefox available. Grepping the ports tree produces only 2 ports that mention WITH_MOZILLA (mail/mail-notification and deskutils/google-gadgets) and in those cases, WITH_MOZILLA is an OPTIONS setting, ie. effectively a boolean. > WITH_GECKO=libxul This is the default, and the only choice at the moment. There is meant to be an option to use libxul-devel if desired, but there isn't actually a libxul-devel port in the tree right now, so it won't do anything for you. > Are they still relevant, or can I just remove them. Honestly, I do not > remember exactly what they do anymore, anyway. You can just delete them. If you want to see what WITH_GECKO does in mre detail, look at /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.gecko.mk 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: Possible obsolete entries in /etc/make.conf
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 07:27:28 -0400, Carmel wrote: > A while ago, at least a year or more I would guess, I saw something > about placing a couple of entries in the "/etc/make.conf" file to > correct a problem with "Firefox". I am currently using Firefox-6.0.1 on > FreeBSD-8.2. These are the entries I am wondering about: > > WITH_MOZILLA=firefox > WITH_GECKO=libxul > > Are they still relevant, or can I just remove them. Honestly, I do not > remember exactly what they do anymore, anyway. I can't name the particular port, but I think I remember that some port required Mozilla (!= Firefox!) as a dependency for using its HTML engine for its help system. Those options prevented the installation of Mozilla and made the port use Firefox instead. This situation appeared when the port that was not seen to have anything to do with web browsing caused the installation of Mozilla, even if Firefox was already installed (and also if it was not). -- 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"
Possible obsolete entries in /etc/make.conf
A while ago, at least a year or more I would guess, I saw something about placing a couple of entries in the "/etc/make.conf" file to correct a problem with "Firefox". I am currently using Firefox-6.0.1 on FreeBSD-8.2. These are the entries I am wondering about: WITH_MOZILLA=firefox WITH_GECKO=libxul Are they still relevant, or can I just remove them. Honestly, I do not remember exactly what they do anymore, anyway. Thanks! -- Carmel ✌ carmel...@hotmail.com If Google is all about openness, where is the public repository for the search engine? ___ 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: Setting Debug flag in /etc/make.conf
Robert Bonomi writes: >> I have been having problems with several different programs lately. >> Would there be any serious drawback to simply setting: "WITH_DEBUG= " >> in the /etc/make.conf file to force everything I build/rebuild to be >> built with debug symbols? I am assuming that I can simply place that >> flag in the make.conf file. Do I have to also give it a value; i.e "=1" >> or "=yes" also? >> > > What's wrong with the traditional way of doing this -- i.e., setting the > environment variable CFLAGS to -g befoe your start make-inthings? Because you need to define empty STRIP, too. OTOH, setting WITH_DEBUG or DEBUG_FLAGS does this for 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: Setting Debug flag in /etc/make.conf
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Sun Aug 1 06:28:18 2010 > Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 07:28:24 -0400 > From: Jerry > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Setting Debug flag in /etc/make.conf > > I have been having problems with several different programs lately. > Would there be any serious drawback to simply setting: "WITH_DEBUG= " > in the /etc/make.conf file to force everything I build/rebuild to be > built with debug symbols? I am assuming that I can simply place that > flag in the make.conf file. Do I have to also give it a value; i.e "=1" > or "=yes" also? > What's wrong with the traditional way of doing this -- i.e., setting the environment variable CFLAGS to -g befoe your start make-inthings? ___ 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: Setting Debug flag in /etc/make.conf
___ 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: Setting Debug flag in /etc/make.conf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roland Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 07:28:24AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
>> I have been having problems with several different programs lately.
>> Would there be any serious drawback to simply setting: "WITH_DEBUG= "
>> in the /etc/make.conf file to force everything I build/rebuild to be
>> built with debug symbols?
>
> No.
>
> You are assuming every program's Makefile uses WITH_DEBUG that way! The base
> system doesn't for one. And neither do all ports. To look for yourself, use
> the following command;
>
> find /usr/ports/ -type f -name Makefile -exec grep -H DEBUG {} \;
>
> While a lot use WITH_DEBUG, not all ports do, and some use other options, like
> NODEBUG or DEBUGFLAGS, or DEBUGGING.
>
> You'd have to look into the programs in question to see how to enable
> debugging for those.
>
> Roland
WITH_DEBUG has special meaning in the ports infrastructure, and as long
as a specific port uses CFLAGS during compilation, it will be compiled
with debugging symbols when WITH_DEBUG is enabled. Some ports also
check the value of WITH_DEBUG within their own Makefile in order to set
port-specific debug build options.
See this excerpt from /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk:
# WITH_DEBUG - If set, debugging flags are added to CFLAGS and the
# binaries don't get stripped by INSTALL_PROGRAM.
# Besides, individual ports might add their specific
# to produce binaries for debugging purposes.
# You can override the debug flags that are passed to
# the compiler by setting DEBUG_FLAGS. It is set to
# "-g" at default.
Just put the following in /etc/make.conf and then recompile the ports
you want to include debug symbols:
WITH_DEBUG= yes
Hope that helps,
Greg
- --
Greg Larkin
http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve
http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code.
http://twitter.com/sourcehosting/ - Follow me, follow you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFMVtFn0sRouByUApARAvlbAKDKwV2anUR87ShERsHVsCpidSof5wCgtb8U
27W9F1G2DmKiebrDrgCe+0c=
=Xhvf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
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: Setting Debug flag in /etc/make.conf
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 07:28:24AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> I have been having problems with several different programs lately.
> Would there be any serious drawback to simply setting: "WITH_DEBUG= "
> in the /etc/make.conf file to force everything I build/rebuild to be
> built with debug symbols?
No.
You are assuming every program's Makefile uses WITH_DEBUG that way! The base
system doesn't for one. And neither do all ports. To look for yourself, use
the following command;
find /usr/ports/ -type f -name Makefile -exec grep -H DEBUG {} \;
While a lot use WITH_DEBUG, not all ports do, and some use other options, like
NODEBUG or DEBUGFLAGS, or DEBUGGING.
You'd have to look into the programs in question to see how to enable
debugging for those.
Roland
--
R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)
pgpL4HEueUnRI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Setting Debug flag in /etc/make.conf
(resending, previous mail didn't show up in the list archive)
Jerry writes:
> I have been having problems with several different programs lately.
> Would there be any serious drawback to simply setting: "WITH_DEBUG= "
You'd lose `-O2' compiler-specific optimization. If you want to retain
it use DEBUG_FLAGS, e.g.
DEBUG_FLAGS = -ggdb
CFLAGS += ${DEBUG_FLAGS}
Ports that build using bsdmake don't really need the second line as well
as buildworld.
> in the /etc/make.conf file to force everything I build/rebuild to be
> built with debug symbols? I am assuming that I can simply place that
> flag in the make.conf file. Do I have to also give it a value; i.e "=1"
> or "=yes" also?
Besides symbols some ports enable compile-time debugging and disable
optimization using WITH_DEBUG ifdef that may impact performance.
___
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"
Setting Debug flag in /etc/make.conf
I have been having problems with several different programs lately. Would there be any serious drawback to simply setting: "WITH_DEBUG= " in the /etc/make.conf file to force everything I build/rebuild to be built with debug symbols? I am assuming that I can simply place that flag in the make.conf file. Do I have to also give it a value; i.e "=1" or "=yes" also? -- Jerry ✌ freebsd.u...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares? ___ 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: Which CPUTYPE in make.conf?
C. P. Ghost wrote: > On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Michael Powell > wrote: >> I think this matters more to third party ports software builds than it >> does the system. I thought that large pieces of the kernel were designed >> to not make much, if any, use the various SIMD extensions. Maybe this has >> changed and I'm behind the times. > > I wouldn't bother setting CPUTYPE at all. It's more trouble than it's > worth. Actually, I've been setting CPUTYPE for many years and have never had any trouble as a result. I've always used the form: CPUTYPE?= blah instead of CPUTYPE= without the question mark. > And you're right: for most ports and for the whole system, it doesn't > really matter. If you have a very specific port that needs particular > tuning, it has either already been tuned individually by the port > maintainer, or you could apply more optimizations yourself (which would > likely require a specially compiled tool chain, when -O with > the base gcc/binutils isn't enough). I have also used CFLAGS= -O2 -pipe COPTFLAGS= -O2 -pipe. About the only place it will really make any difference is in some multimedia apps. And you're right that if needed the port maintainer has already taken care of this. > Unless you have a very specific need, better leave CPUTYPE alone. Thing is, any performance increase is only going to be very small. So small the difference can probably not be seen subjectively. I'll do it as long as it creates no problem; if any problem were to arise over this I'd kill it in a heartbeat and not fuss over it. It is a point of diminishing returns. [snip] -Mike ___ 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: Which CPUTYPE in make.conf?
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Michael Powell wrote: > I think this matters more to third party ports software builds than it does > the system. I thought that large pieces of the kernel were designed to not > make much, if any, use the various SIMD extensions. Maybe this has changed > and I'm behind the times. I wouldn't bother setting CPUTYPE at all. It's more trouble than it's worth. And you're right: for most ports and for the whole system, it doesn't really matter. If you have a very specific port that needs particular tuning, it has either already been tuned individually by the port maintainer, or you could apply more optimizations yourself (which would likely require a specially compiled tool chain, when -O with the base gcc/binutils isn't enough). Unless you have a very specific need, better leave CPUTYPE alone. > Your use of athlon64 seems reasonable to me. It is what I've been using. If > it can be done better I'm always on the look out for better. > > -Mike -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ 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: Which CPUTYPE in make.conf?
Mike Clarke wrote: > > I have a AMD Athlon 4850e which is described as "Athlon 64 X2" > Dual-Core" processor. > > /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf lists recognised CPU types, but which > of athlon64, athlon-mp or athlon-xp is the most appropriate for this > CPU? I've been using "athlon64" so far without any problems but I don't > know if it's the most appropriate choice or if there's even any > significant difference between them. > athlon64 is probably a good choice. I haven't looked at it in a while, and there isn't much difference. IIRC the older athlon-xp included support for 3D Now and mmx while the athlon64 adds sse and/or sse2. I think this matters more to third party ports software builds than it does the system. I thought that large pieces of the kernel were designed to not make much, if any, use the various SIMD extensions. Maybe this has changed and I'm behind the times. Your use of athlon64 seems reasonable to me. It is what I've been using. If it can be done better I'm always on the look out for better. -Mike ___ 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: Which CPUTYPE in make.conf?
I deal with AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Windsor (AM2, L2 2048Kb) and wondering of it's CPUTYPE too. 2010/4/24 Mike Clarke > > I have a AMD Athlon 4850e which is described as "Athlon 64 X2" > Dual-Core" processor. > > /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf lists recognised CPU types, but which > of athlon64, athlon-mp or athlon-xp is the most appropriate for this > CPU? I've been using "athlon64" so far without any problems but I don't > know if it's the most appropriate choice or if there's even any > significant difference between them. > > -- > Mike Clarke > ___ > 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"
Which CPUTYPE in make.conf?
I have a AMD Athlon 4850e which is described as "Athlon 64 X2" Dual-Core" processor. /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf lists recognised CPU types, but which of athlon64, athlon-mp or athlon-xp is the most appropriate for this CPU? I've been using "athlon64" so far without any problems but I don't know if it's the most appropriate choice or if there's even any significant difference between them. -- Mike Clarke ___ 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: Using "march=native" in "/etc/make.conf"
On 02/23/10 13:21, RW wrote: On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:41:04 -0500 Carmel wrote: I just acquired an older Gateway GT5220 with an AMD 62 Athlon-x2 dual processor. I want to set it up as a sort of test machine. There does not seem to be a specific setting for 'cpu-type' or 'march' for this machine. I have notices on some Linux forums that they recommend using the 'native' keyword; i.e., "march=native" in the 'make.conf' file to get the most optimization out of the CPU. Would that be correct for FreeBSD also? Would it also be appropriate for other CPUs as well? FreeBSD sets "march" and other default settings based on CPUTYPE. It's probably better to set that. Yes but the old version of gcc in FreeBSD (4.2) is lacking support for modern CPUs. Using march=native is fine. ___ 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: Using "march=native" in "/etc/make.conf"
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:41:04 -0500 Carmel wrote: > I just acquired an older Gateway GT5220 with an AMD 62 Athlon-x2 > dual processor. I want to set it up as a sort of test machine. There > does not seem to be a specific setting for 'cpu-type' or 'march' for > this machine. I have notices on some Linux forums that they recommend > using the 'native' keyword; i.e., "march=native" in the 'make.conf' > file to get the most optimization out of the CPU. Would that be > correct for FreeBSD also? Would it also be appropriate for other CPUs > as well? FreeBSD sets "march" and other default settings based on CPUTYPE. It's probably better to set that. ___ 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"
Using "march=native" in "/etc/make.conf"
I just acquired an older Gateway GT5220 with an AMD 62 Athlon-x2 dual processor. I want to set it up as a sort of test machine. There does not seem to be a specific setting for 'cpu-type' or 'march' for this machine. I have notices on some Linux forums that they recommend using the 'native' keyword; i.e., "march=native" in the 'make.conf' file to get the most optimization out of the CPU. Would that be correct for FreeBSD also? Would it also be appropriate for other CPUs as well? Thanks :-) -- Carmel carmel...@hotmail.com |=== |=== |=== |=== | The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax. Albert Einstein ___ 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"
Adding "march" & "mtune" to /etc/make.conf
I read somewhere that adding the following to the /etc/make.conf file would improve system performance: march=native mtune=native Is there any truth to this? I an running 32-bit I386 Freebsd on a 64-bit processor. The main reason being that the is (was) no native 64-bit drivers for nVidia video cards. In any case, I thought 'mtune' defaults to what "march" is set to so why enter both? -- Carmel carmel...@hotmail.com |=== |=== |=== |=== | You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 10^12 to 1. Ernest Rutherford ___ 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: Nehelem & 64 bit, kern conf and /etc/make.conf
>I just installed FreeBSD 8.0 (amd64) onto my new Nehalem-based system. > >CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5506 @ 2.13GHz (2128.00-MHz K8-class CPU) > Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x106a5 Stepping = 5 > > >Features=0xbfebfbffA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE> > > >Features2=0x9ce3bd > AMD Features=0x28100800 > AMD Features2=0x1 > TSC: P-state invariant > > >I am now in the process of configuring the kernel config file. > >A few questions; > >1. Is the kernel config file I want to modify >/usr/src/sys/amd64/conf/GENERIC ? (Copy that file as /root/PORKY, and >set up a symlink from /usr/src/sys/amd64/conf to /root/PORKY.) You don't have to do this: you could just use GENERIC. But if you want to build a custom kernel, and you are not familiar with all of the kernel options, GENERIC is a good starting point. > >2. What should I set this line to: >cpu HAMMER >Right now it's "HAMMER", I have no idea what Hammer is. What would be >the best thing to set it to? I want to be as specific as possible for >my CPU type. Leave this alone. If you change it, you will break your kernel. It's not meant to be customized: it's just a name that was chosen because it happened to be AMD's prototype 64-bit CPU at the time the amd64 port was being written. > >3. The instructions here: >http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/kernelconfig-config.html >mention a line like this: >machinei386 >(which would probably by "amd64" in my case), but the "machine" line >is missing entirely from GENERIC conf file. Should I add it? No, leave it alone. The documentation is outdated; this option is now set in DEFAULTS, which is a small list of very important stuff that every kernel of a certain architecture must contain in order to function properly. It is not meant to be customizable. > >4. In /etc/make.conf, I'm used to having, for example: >CPUTYPE?=core2 >What would be my CPU in this case (Xeon L5506)? I know this line is >not necessary, but I'd like to set it to the most specific kind of CPU >possible for my case to gain any optimizations, so long as it does not >make my system unstable. This option is only used to set the flags for the C and C++ compilers. The base system compiler for FreeBSD 7-9 is a patched version of gcc 4.2, and is hooked up to a patched version of binutils 2.15. This compiler suite and tool-chain are not new enough to take full advantage of your CPU: the best you can do is set it to auto-detect your CPU, or hard-code it to the most modern compatible CPU that existed when the compiler suite and tool-chain were written. However, some people have started to use newer compilers and tool-chains from FreeBSD Ports (some ports even require it), and if you do that, you may need a different value. Probably, your best bet is to use: CPUTYPE?= native and to check to make sure that the base system compiler is actually equating this with 'nocona', and enabling all of your SIMD extensions that it supports. This won't make a great deal of difference for kernel performance, but it will affect other base system programs and ports if you are using CFLAGS with -march or other optimization flags. 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"
Nehelem & 64 bit, kern conf and /etc/make.conf
I just installed FreeBSD 8.0 (amd64) onto my new Nehalem-based system. CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5506 @ 2.13GHz (2128.00-MHz K8-class CPU) Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x106a5 Stepping = 5 Features=0xbfebfbff Features2=0x9ce3bd AMD Features=0x28100800 AMD Features2=0x1 TSC: P-state invariant I am now in the process of configuring the kernel config file. A few questions; 1. Is the kernel config file I want to modify /usr/src/sys/amd64/conf/GENERIC ? (Copy that file as /root/PORKY, and set up a symlink from /usr/src/sys/amd64/conf to /root/PORKY.) 2. What should I set this line to: cpu HAMMER Right now it's "HAMMER", I have no idea what Hammer is. What would be the best thing to set it to? I want to be as specific as possible for my CPU type. 3. The instructions here: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/kernelconfig-config.html mention a line like this: machinei386 (which would probably by "amd64" in my case), but the "machine" line is missing entirely from GENERIC conf file. Should I add it? 4. In /etc/make.conf, I'm used to having, for example: CPUTYPE?=core2 What would be my CPU in this case (Xeon L5506)? I know this line is not necessary, but I'd like to set it to the most specific kind of CPU possible for my case to gain any optimizations, so long as it does not make my system unstable. ___ 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: make.conf options based on DESTDIR?
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 20:16:47 David Wassman wrote:
> I have setup several jails that use a master template similar to the
> advanced jail configuration in the handbook. Currently, I build the master
> jail with several build options turned off using a separate make.conf file
> and setting __MAKE_CONF to it.
>
> I was wondering if there is a way to set /etc/make.conf up so that if
> DESTDIR is set to the master jail location, make would use those options
> but not use them during a standard build process with DESTDIR not defined
> or pointed somewhere else.
>
> I have read through the man pages on make and make.conf, and have tried:
>
> .if DESTDIR=/usr/Jail/master
> WITHOUT_ACPI=YES
> WITHOUT_BOOT=YES
> ...
> .endif
Almost:
# head -3 /etc/make.conf
.if defined(DESTDIR) && (${DESTDIR:M/usr/jails/tpl} != "")
WITH_FOO=yes
.endif
# cat Makefile
all:
@echo "WITH_FOO=${WITH_FOO}"
# make
WITH_FOO=
# make DESTDIR=/usr/jails/tpl
WITH_FOO=yes
--
Mel
___
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"
make.conf options based on DESTDIR?
I have setup several jails that use a master template similar to the advanced jail configuration in the handbook. Currently, I build the master jail with several build options turned off using a separate make.conf file and setting __MAKE_CONF to it. I was wondering if there is a way to set /etc/make.conf up so that if DESTDIR is set to the master jail location, make would use those options but not use them during a standard build process with DESTDIR not defined or pointed somewhere else. I have read through the man pages on make and make.conf, and have tried: .if DESTDIR=/usr/Jail/master WITHOUT_ACPI=YES WITHOUT_BOOT=YES ... .endif But it does not seem to work correctly. Any ideas if this is possible. Would make it easier to rebuild the jail template since I wouldn't need to remember to set __MAKE_CONF. Any help would be appreciated. David Wassman, MCSA MCP Net+ Security+ Senior Network\System Administrator Davis, Monk & Company (800) 344-5034 (352) 372-6300 (352) 375-1583 FAX The information contained in this electronic message is legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Davis, Monk & Company (352) 372-6300 and delete this communication immediately without reading it, making any copies of it or distributing it. P Please keep this email paperless ___ 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: What ELSE do I need to add to make.conf to avoid X ?
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 07:40:53AM -0700, Juri Mianovich wrote:
>
> Just trying to install rrdtool on a server.
>
> Do not want X. Do not want X11. Do not want Xorg.
> Oops. Looks like I was going to get X11 anyway.
>
> So, what other options do I need to add to make.conf in order to
> install a simple stats/database tool without hundreds and hundreds of
> MB of x11 ?
You should pick a tool that doesn't depend on X
components. From databases/rrdtool/Makefile:
LIB_DEPENDS=freetype.9:${PORTSDIR}/print/freetype2 \
cairo.2:${PORTSDIR}/graphics/cairo \
png.5:${PORTSDIR}/graphics/png \
xml2.5:${PORTSDIR}/textproc/libxml2 \
pangocairo-1\.0.0:${PORTSDIR}/x11-toolkits/pango
and
USE_GNOME= gnomehack
The cairo library depends on an Xorg component called xrender, unless
you build it with the WITHOUT_X11 variable defined, which is not the
default. See /usr/ports/graphics/cairo/Makefile.
Pango depends on some X components as well, unless compiled with the
WITHOUT_X11 variable defined. See /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/pango/Makefile.
So if you _really_ want no X related stuff at all, you'd better pick
something else, because cairo and pango are linked with several X
components. Check the required items for rrdtool on freshports
[http://www.freshports.org/databases/rrdtool/], and then follow the
links to the packages it depends on, and look at their
dependancies. You'll see a host of X related stuff. Maybe using
WITHOUT_X11=yes is sufficient to stop these dependencies, but I doubt if
that is a situation that has been well tested.
Roland
--
R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)
pgpmKJbB7TfaW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: What ELSE do I need to add to make.conf to avoid X ?
In the last episode (Apr 07), Juri Mianovich said: > Just trying to install rrdtool on a server. > > Do not want X. Do not want X11. Do not want Xorg. > > So I did the "right" thing and added this to /etc/make.conf: > > WITHOUT_X11=yes > WITHOUT_X=yes > WITH_X=NO > ENABLE_GUI=NO > > and then 'make install' in the rrdtool directory. The problem is, eventually > I saw this: > > ===> Installing for pango-1.14.7 > ===> pango-1.14.7 depends on file: /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/luximb.ttf > - not found > ===>Verifying install for /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/luximb.ttf in > /usr/ports/x11-fonts/xorg-fonts-truetype > ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found > ===> Extracting for xorg-fonts-truetype-6.9.0 > => MD5 Checksum mismatch for xorg/X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz. > => SHA256 Checksum mismatch for xorg/X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz. > ===> Refetch for 1 more times files: xorg/X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz > xorg/X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz > ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found > => X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz doesn't seem to exist in /usr/ports/distfiles/xorg. > => Attempting to fetch from > ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/x11/x.org/pub/X11R6.9.0/src/. > X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz 3% of 31 MB 8188 Bps > 01h05m^C > fetch: transfer interrupted > > Oops. Looks like I was going to get X11 anyway. > > So, what other options do I need to add to make.conf in order to install a > simple stats/database tool without hundreds and hundreds of MB of x11 ? Note that it's only downloading that file to install the fonts that are included in it. It's not going to install all of X. You might be able to comment out the RUN_DEPENDS entries in the pango Makefile to avoid installing any fonts, but your rrdtool graphs will look boring with no text :) -- Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.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"
What ELSE do I need to add to make.conf to avoid X ?
Juri Mianovich writes: > Just trying to install rrdtool on a server. > > Do not want X. Do not want X11. Do not want Xorg. > > > ===> Installing for pango-1.14.7 If it requires pango, I think you're hosed. I don't think it's possible to build pango without X, if only for various .h files. (And given what pango does, it wouldn't make much sense to.) Robert Huff ___ 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: What ELSE do I need to add to make.conf to avoid X ?
Juri Mianovich wrote: > Just trying to install rrdtool on a server. > > Do not want X. Do not want X11. Do not want Xorg. > > So I did the "right" thing and added this to /etc/make.conf: > > WITHOUT_X11=yes > WITHOUT_X=yes > WITH_X=NO > ENABLE_GUI=NO > > and then 'make install' in the rrdtool directory. The problem is, eventually > I saw this: > > ===> Installing for pango-1.14.7 > ===> pango-1.14.7 depends on file: /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/luximb.ttf > - not found > ===>Verifying install for /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/luximb.ttf in > /usr/ports/x11-fonts/xorg-fonts-truetype > ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found > ===> Extracting for xorg-fonts-truetype-6.9.0 > => MD5 Checksum mismatch for xorg/X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz. > => SHA256 Checksum mismatch for xorg/X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz. > ===> Refetch for 1 more times files: xorg/X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz > xorg/X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz > ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found > => X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz doesn't seem to exist in /usr/ports/distfiles/xorg. > => Attempting to fetch from > ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/x11/x.org/pub/X11R6.9.0/src/. > X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz 3% of 31 MB 8188 Bps > 01h05m^C > fetch: transfer interrupted > > > > Oops. Looks like I was going to get X11 anyway. > > So, what other options do I need to add to make.conf in order to install a > simple stats/database tool without hundreds and hundreds of MB of x11 ? > > Thanks. > I don't think your '=NO' stuff would do much. You may also wish to add WITHOUT_GUI=yes ___ 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"
What ELSE do I need to add to make.conf to avoid X ?
Just trying to install rrdtool on a server. Do not want X. Do not want X11. Do not want Xorg. So I did the "right" thing and added this to /etc/make.conf: WITHOUT_X11=yes WITHOUT_X=yes WITH_X=NO ENABLE_GUI=NO and then 'make install' in the rrdtool directory. The problem is, eventually I saw this: ===> Installing for pango-1.14.7 ===> pango-1.14.7 depends on file: /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/luximb.ttf - not found ===>Verifying install for /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/luximb.ttf in /usr/ports/x11-fonts/xorg-fonts-truetype ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found ===> Extracting for xorg-fonts-truetype-6.9.0 => MD5 Checksum mismatch for xorg/X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz. => SHA256 Checksum mismatch for xorg/X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz. ===> Refetch for 1 more times files: xorg/X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz xorg/X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found => X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz doesn't seem to exist in /usr/ports/distfiles/xorg. => Attempting to fetch from ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/x11/x.org/pub/X11R6.9.0/src/. X11R6.9.0-src1.tar.gz 3% of 31 MB 8188 Bps 01h05m^C fetch: transfer interrupted Oops. Looks like I was going to get X11 anyway. So, what other options do I need to add to make.conf in order to install a simple stats/database tool without hundreds and hundreds of MB of x11 ? 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: overwriting NOT_FOR_ARCHS via /etc/make.conf has no effect
On Monday 26 January 2009 05:06:48 Polytropon wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:55:29 +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > > I'm trying to overwrite a Makefile variable via /etc/make.conf > > It doesn't seem to work: > > This behaviour is correct. The local makefiles have precedence > before the /etc/make.conf settings. They don't, even though it seems so. The Makefile is *read* after /etc/make.conf. The Makefile sets this variable unconditionally, therefore cannot be overridden by anything that is read before the Makefile. If the Makefile defined it like so: NOT_FOR_ARCHS?=alpha ia64 then /etc/make.conf would work, since the variable is defined at the time the Makefile is read. > > > What am I doing wrong? > > You could modify the port's Makefile itself, or create Makefile.local > in the port's dicrectory with your specific settings, but I don't > now if this mechanism is still supported. It is and since Makefile.local is read *after* the Makefile, you can override the variable there. -- Mel Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules and never get to the software part. ___ 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: overwriting NOT_FOR_ARCHS via /etc/make.conf has no effect
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:55:29 +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > I'm trying to overwrite a Makefile variable via /etc/make.conf > It doesn't seem to work: This behaviour is correct. The local makefiles have precedence before the /etc/make.conf settings. > What am I doing wrong? You could modify the port's Makefile itself, or create Makefile.local in the port's dicrectory with your specific settings, but I don't now if this mechanism is still supported. -- Polytropon >From 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"
overwriting NOT_FOR_ARCHS via /etc/make.conf has no effect
I'm trying to overwrite a Makefile variable via /etc/make.conf
It doesn't seem to work:
# cd /usr/ports/lang/gcc43
# grep NOT Makefile
NOT_FOR_ARCHS= alpha ia64
# grep -C1 NOT /etc/make.conf
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/lang/gcc4*}
NOT_FOR_ARCHS= ia64
.endif
# make
===> gcc-4.3.3_20090122 does not run on alpha ia64, while you are running
alpha.
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/lang/gcc43.
#
What am I doing wrong?
many thanks
anton
--
Anton Shterenlikht
Room 2.6, Queen's Building
Mech Eng Dept
Bristol University
University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK
Tel: +44 (0)117 928 8233
Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
___
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 build ignores /etc/make.conf
Anton Shterenlikht writes:
> I have:
>
> # uname -srm
> FreeBSD 6.4-STABLE alpha
> #
>
> In /etc/make.conf I have
>
> .if ${.CURDIR:M*/lang/gcc*}
> NOT_FOR_ARCHS=
> .endif
>
> However, I get:
>
> # cd /usr/ports/lang/gcc43
> # make
> ===> gcc-4.3.3_20090101 does not run on alpha ia64, while you are running
> alpha.
> *** Error code 1
>
> Stop in /usr/ports/lang/gcc43.
> #
>
> So it seems make ignores NOT_FOR_ARCHS= setting.
> When I add this to the gcc43/Makefile directly, build
> goes ahead.
>
> What's the problem?
The port's makefile is overriding the setting you put in make.conf.
That variable is intended for use in ports, not by end-users (otherwise,
the port makefile would use a different assignment operator to avoid
overwriting existing settings).
If you really think you can fix the build for that architecture, you
should be modifying the original makefile.
--
Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area
http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/
___
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"
ports tree build ignores /etc/make.conf
I have:
# uname -srm
FreeBSD 6.4-STABLE alpha
#
In /etc/make.conf I have
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/lang/gcc*}
NOT_FOR_ARCHS=
.endif
However, I get:
# cd /usr/ports/lang/gcc43
# make
===> gcc-4.3.3_20090101 does not run on alpha ia64, while you are running
alpha.
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/lang/gcc43.
#
So it seems make ignores NOT_FOR_ARCHS= setting.
When I add this to the gcc43/Makefile directly, build
goes ahead.
What's the problem?
many thanks
anton
--
Anton Shterenlikht
Room 2.6, Queen's Building
Mech Eng Dept
Bristol University
University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK
Tel: +44 (0)117 928 8233
Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
___
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: make.conf
Mitja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> .if ${.CURDIR:M*/ports/editors/openoffice.org-2}
> WITH_KDE= yes
> .endif
I think the spaces at the beginning of the line can
cause problems. Please try removing them. It is
customary that assignments begin at the first column
in makefiles.
Best regards
Oliver
--
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M.
Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung:
secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün-
chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart
FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd
One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them,
One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
make.conf
Hi!
I got a help how to keep OpenOffice tu build with KDE:
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/ports/editors/openoffice.org-2}
WITH_KDE= yes
.endif
...and I did it but when I start portmaster I got:
portmaster -ad
1 open conditional:
at line 112 (evaluated to true)
make: fatal errors encountered -- cannot continue
===>>> The value of PORTSDIR cannot be empty
===>>> Aborting update
Thanks in advance.
--
All other things being equal, a bald man cannot be elected President of
the United States.
-- Vic Gold
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Add CONFIGURE_ARGS option for port in make.conf
Polytropon wrote: As it has been mentioned before, /etc/make.conf is read first with your +=, setting CONFIGURE_ARGS to only this one value. Then, Makefile of the port is read, and it has a = in it, not a +=, so CONFIGURE_ARGS is overwritten and your setting is gone. Hint: Maybe the Makefile.local mechanism of the ports is still available. Then, you would add your += directive in a file called Makefile.local in the port's directory. As far is I know, Makefile.local is read after Makefile, so you can profit from settings done in the first mentioned place. Thanks for your hint. This worked fine. Nevertheless it would be a good thing to keep this kind of port modifications in a central place. Regards, Matthias ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Add CONFIGURE_ARGS option for port in make.conf
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:04:46 +0200, Matthias Kellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, but I thought CONFIGURE_ARGS+= should add this option and not > overwrite the options from the Makefile. Therefore the plus-sign. As it has been mentioned before, /etc/make.conf is read first with your +=, setting CONFIGURE_ARGS to only this one value. Then, Makefile of the port is read, and it has a = in it, not a +=, so CONFIGURE_ARGS is overwritten and your setting is gone. Hint: Maybe the Makefile.local mechanism of the ports is still available. Then, you would add your += directive in a file called Makefile.local in the port's directory. As far is I know, Makefile.local is read after Makefile, so you can profit from settings done in the first mentioned place. -- Polytropon >From 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 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Add CONFIGURE_ARGS option for port in make.conf
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 10:04:23AM +0200, Matthias Kellermann wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I want to compile a port with an option that is not controllable through
> the FreeBSD Makefile or with make config.
>
> The specific port is lang/php4 and the option I want to add is
> --with-mime-magic (I know, php4 is old and not supported after 8.8.08
> and --with-mime-magic is deprecated, but thats another story...).
>
> So I added an option to make.conf(5):
>
> .if ${.CURDIR:M*/lang/php4}
> CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--with-mime-magic
> .endif
>
> Unfortonately, this does not work.
>
> When I add this option in the Makefile it works. The relevant part looks
> like this:
>
> CONFIGURE_ARGS= --enable-versioning \
> --with-mime-magic \
> --enable-memory-limit \
> --with-layout=GNU \
> --with-config-file-scan-dir=${PREFIX}/etc/php \
> --disable-all \
> --program-prefix=""
>
> Any ideas whats wrong here?
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
/etc/make.conf is read first, from make(1):
First of all, the initial list of specifications will be read from the
system makefile, sys.mk, unless inhibited with the -r option. The
standard
sys.mk as shipped with FreeBSD also handles make.conf(5)
So if the port uses VAR= instead of VAR+= (Or VAR?=) then settings in
/etc/make.conf will have no effect.
AFAIK there is no pretty workaround, you will need to edit the Makefile.
For a more structual solution, ports should use CONFIGURE_ARGS+= instead of
CONFIGURE_ARGS, or a a new variable can be added, where the user can set
custom configure arguments (i.e. LOCAL_CONFIGURE_ARGS).
--
Martin Tournoij
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.daemonforums.org
QOTD:
Do not overtax your powers.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Add CONFIGURE_ARGS option for port in make.conf
RW wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:04:23 +0200
Matthias Kellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi list,
I want to compile a port with an option that is not controllable
through the FreeBSD Makefile or with make config.
...
So I added an option to make.conf(5):
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/lang/php4}
CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--with-mime-magic
.endif
Unfortonately, this does not work.
...
Any ideas whats wrong here?
make.conf is read before the makefile. The use of "CONFIGURE_ARGS=" in
the port makefile means that any change to CONFIGURE_ARGS made in
make.conf is lost.
I think you'll have to maintain a patch against the port makefile.
Thanks, but I thought CONFIGURE_ARGS+= should add this option and not
overwrite the options from the Makefile. Therefore the plus-sign.
Regards,
Matthias
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Add CONFIGURE_ARGS option for port in make.conf
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:04:23 +0200
Matthias Kellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I want to compile a port with an option that is not controllable
> through the FreeBSD Makefile or with make config.
> ...
> So I added an option to make.conf(5):
>
> .if ${.CURDIR:M*/lang/php4}
> CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--with-mime-magic
> .endif
>
> Unfortonately, this does not work.
>...
> Any ideas whats wrong here?
make.conf is read before the makefile. The use of "CONFIGURE_ARGS=" in
the port makefile means that any change to CONFIGURE_ARGS made in
make.conf is lost.
I think you'll have to maintain a patch against the port makefile.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Add CONFIGURE_ARGS option for port in make.conf
Hi list,
I want to compile a port with an option that is not controllable through
the FreeBSD Makefile or with make config.
The specific port is lang/php4 and the option I want to add is
--with-mime-magic (I know, php4 is old and not supported after 8.8.08
and --with-mime-magic is deprecated, but thats another story...).
So I added an option to make.conf(5):
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/lang/php4}
CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--with-mime-magic
.endif
Unfortonately, this does not work.
When I add this option in the Makefile it works. The relevant part looks
like this:
CONFIGURE_ARGS= --enable-versioning \
--with-mime-magic \
--enable-memory-limit \
--with-layout=GNU \
--with-config-file-scan-dir=${PREFIX}/etc/php \
--disable-all \
--program-prefix=""
Any ideas whats wrong here?
Regards,
Matthias
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 7.0-make.conf
WITHOUT_SENDMAIL=true I am not sure of the need for the 'true' or not. it seems it is not required but should work either way? From the manpage: The values of variables are ignored regardless of their setting; even if they would be set to ``FALSE'' or ``NO''. Just the existence of an option will cause it to be honoured by make(1). so the plain option is enough. If the machines are in environment where they might be someday administered by someone else, I'd use pure option to avoid confusing someone who hasn't read the manpage and thinks setting variables to false will void them. -Reko ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 7.0-make.conf
Has this been removed or is it still supported? It does not appear in the man page or examples... NO_BIND=true make.conf has been split into two, the actual make.conf which has variables for the make process and generic make environment and src.conf which controls the building of "add-on" software. Check src.conf for details. -Reko ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 7.0-make.conf
At 03:03 PM 7/27/2008 +0300, Reko Turja wrote: make.conf has been split into two, the actual make.conf which has variables for the make process and generic make environment and src.conf which controls the building of "add-on" software. Check src.conf for details. -Reko so something like this it seems: WITHOUT_BIND=true WITHOUT_GAMES=true WITHOUT_MAILWRAPPER=true WITHOUT_OPENSSH=true WITHOUT_SENDMAIL=true I am not sure of the need for the 'true' or not. it seems it is not required but should work either way? -JD ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
7.0-make.conf
Has this been removed or is it still supported? It does not appear in the man page or examples... NO_BIND=true -JD ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Do I put down cputype in make.conf ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Yavuz Maslak wrote: | I have a quad-core intel 64 bit cpu. | I got 7.0-STABLE-200806-amd64-disc1.iso from | ftp://ftp3.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/200806/ | I installed freebsd7.0-stable from it. | | the machine works well. But do I need to edit /etc/make.conf for cputype ? | if it need to be edited What should I put down it in /etc/make.conf ? You don't strictly /need/ to set the CPUTYPE in /etc/make.conf -- but you can if you like. It's a trade-off between getting some CPU specific compiler optimizations (which may or may not result in better performance) and being able to move compiled objects to machines with different CPUs. An appropriate setting in your case would be: ~ CPUTYPE?= core2 but there are usually several alternatives which would work. Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. Flat 3 ~ 7 Priory Courtyard PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate ~ Kent, CT11 9PW, UK -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREDAAYFAkhx7FMACgkQ3jDkPpsZ+VY6lACfT6r8AULaRonO4SADaCgYB0uF Pw8An0QDtl25omywbn3PKlm6MF7RB+Ue =48An -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Do I put down cputype in make.conf ?
I have a quad-core intel 64 bit cpu. I got 7.0-STABLE-200806-amd64-disc1.iso from ftp://ftp3.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/200806/ I installed freebsd7.0-stable from it. the machine works well. But do I need to edit /etc/make.conf for cputype ? if it need to be edited What should I put down it in /etc/make.conf ? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: What happened to NO_OPENSSH in make.conf with FreeBSD 7?
In the last episode (Apr 23), FreeBSD said: > Hello everyone, > > With FreeBSD 6.2-Release, I added the option NO_OPENSSH=true in the > make.conf I use to build jails. But, I just rebuilded a jail in FreeBSD > 7-Release and I realized at the mergemaster step of the update that there > were a lot of files related to OpenSSH that needed to be installed. By > checking the man and /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf, I find no reference > to this option anymore. > > Can someone shed some light on this? They have been converted to ports-style WITH/WITHOUT_* flags, and the preferred location is /etc/src.conf (so as to not add unnecessary defines to other programs that happen to use make). See the src.conf manpage for the full list. I thought the NO_* flags were still supported, though (according to the 20060317 /usr/src/UPDATING entry). -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
What happened to NO_OPENSSH in make.conf with FreeBSD 7?
Hello everyone, With FreeBSD 6.2-Release, I added the option NO_OPENSSH=true in the make.conf I use to build jails. But, I just rebuilded a jail in FreeBSD 7-Release and I realized at the mergemaster step of the update that there were a lot of files related to OpenSSH that needed to be installed. By checking the man and /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf, I find no reference to this option anymore. Can someone shed some light on this? Thank you very much, Martin ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Setting CPUTYPE and CFLAGS in make.conf
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:35:51 -0700 "David Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you for your reply. It's starting to make a lot more sense. > Just to confirm, then, if there's no CPUTYPE set, I can then set up > a build server on an Opteron box, for example, to build world, kernel > and ports binaries that can then be installed on my Thinkpad or > a PIII box? CPUTYPE=pentiumpro is a good choice for mainstream i386 processors since it's the common ancestor of the Athlon and modern Pentium series - the exceptions are some of the low-power cpus for small form-factor motherboards. The default is i486, which should handle anything. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Setting CPUTYPE and CFLAGS in make.conf
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:35:51AM -0700, David Allen wrote: > > Avoid setting CFLAGS unless you have a good reason - Gentoo > > documentation has a lot to answer for. CPUTYPE causes "-march" to be > > applied, so it can affect compatibility. AFAIK both setting do affect > > world and kernel because CFLAGS can cause a build to fail, and I've > > seen matching march settings in kernel builds. > > > > > Or are those settings relevant to the > > > compilation process only? Or to both the compilation process and the > > > actual performance of the binary? > > > > It can be either, -O2 is related to execution, -pipe speeds-up > > compilation. > > Thank you for your reply. It's starting to make a lot more sense. > Just to confirm, then, if there's no CPUTYPE set, I can then set up > a build server on an Opteron box, for example, to build world, kernel > and ports binaries that can then be installed on my Thinkpad or > a PIII box? Only if they use the same architecture! If your opteron is running amd64, its binaries won't run on a pIII, which can only run the i386 architecture. If you read through /usr/src/share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk you can see the different CPU types and the effect they have on build parameters. E.g. on the i386 architecture, if no CPUTYPE is set, the CPU type is set to i486, which is the lowest common denominator that gcc supports. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgplMUMLIBvOx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Setting CPUTYPE and CFLAGS in make.conf
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:35:51AM -0700, David Allen wrote: [...] > Thank you for your reply. It's starting to make a lot more sense. > Just to confirm, then, if there's no CPUTYPE set, I can then set up > a build server on an Opteron box, for example, to build world, kernel > and ports binaries that can then be installed on my Thinkpad or > a PIII box? Yes, provided they use the same architectures, eg: i386 -- Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "We laugh in the face of danger, we drop icecubes down the vest of fear" - Edmond Blackadder III ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Setting CPUTYPE and CFLAGS in make.conf
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM, RW wrote: > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:14:45 -0700 David Allen wrote: > > > The advice I've read in several posts on the subject involve > > everything from setting one, setting both, to ignoring both, > > sometimes with the =? notation and sometimes without. And then, I've > > read comments that suggest when compiling the kernel, for example, > > both are ignored, and default values (tucked away somewhere) are > > always applied. IIRC, the handbook recommends at least setting > > CPUTYPE. > > Avoid setting CFLAGS unless you have a good reason - Gentoo > documentation has a lot to answer for. CPUTYPE causes "-march" to be > applied, so it can affect compatibility. AFAIK both setting do affect > world and kernel because CFLAGS can cause a build to fail, and I've > seen matching march settings in kernel builds. > > > Or are those settings relevant to the > > compilation process only? Or to both the compilation process and the > > actual performance of the binary? > > It can be either, -O2 is related to execution, -pipe speeds-up > compilation. Thank you for your reply. It's starting to make a lot more sense. Just to confirm, then, if there's no CPUTYPE set, I can then set up a build server on an Opteron box, for example, to build world, kernel and ports binaries that can then be installed on my Thinkpad or a PIII box? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Setting CPUTYPE and CFLAGS in make.conf
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:14:45 -0700 "David Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The advice I've read in several posts on the subject involve > everything from setting one, setting both, to ignoring both, > sometimes with the =? notation and sometimes without. And then, I've > read comments that suggest when compiling the kernel, for example, > both are ignored, and default values (tucked away somewhere) are > always applied. IIRC, the handbook recommends at least setting > CPUTYPE. Avoid setting CFLAGS unless you have a good reason - Gentoo documentation has a lot to answer for. CPUTYPE causes "-march" to be applied, so it can affect compatibility. AFAIK both setting do affect world and kernel because CFLAGS can cause a build to fail, and I've seen matching march settings in kernel builds. > Or are those settings relevant to the > compilation process only? Or to both the compilation process and the > actual performance of the binary? It can be either, -O2 is related to execution, -pipe speeds-up compilation. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Setting CPUTYPE and CFLAGS in make.conf
The advice I've read in several posts on the subject involve everything from setting one, setting both, to ignoring both, sometimes with the =? notation and sometimes without. And then, I've read comments that suggest when compiling the kernel, for example, both are ignored, and default values (tucked away somewhere) are always applied. IIRC, the handbook recommends at least setting CPUTYPE. My question isn't a holy grail type of quest for maximised performance, but concerns the meaning of those settings with respect to building world, building kernel and anything in ports. Put another way, I'm not a computer science major, but do have different systems that I compile for, and I'd like to have a better understand WTF I'm really doing. For example, what is the difference, if any, between a binary compiled with: CPUTYPE=opteron CFLAGS=-O -pipe compares with compiling it using: CPUTYPE=pentium3 CFLAGS= compares with compiling it using what I think are the universal defaults of: CPUTYPE= CFLAGS=-O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe that get applied if the make.conf is blank? Can the resulting binary be run on each other's system? Or is it simply optimised to run on one, versus another? Or are those settings relevant to the compilation process only? Or to both the compilation process and the actual performance of the binary? Or should I be taking the dog for a nice long walk instead of watching scrolling compiler output? ;-) If someone could take a moment to explain in moderately technical terms what all the above means, or suggest a source for further reading, I'd be grateful. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Tuning make.conf
Thank you for your answers, you have been very clear! I'm still not into recompiling the kernel for the moment! I will have a look at the way to speed up the various ports building with the gmake. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Tuning make.conf
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:20:14 + RW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > prescott (32-bit). See /usr/src/share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk. That should be /usr/share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Tuning make.conf
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:01:47 + RW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just set CPUTYPE unless you know what you are doing. I forgot to mention, you can set core2 if you want to. At present, it will be automatically translated into either nocona (64-bit) or prescott (32-bit). See /usr/src/share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk. As a generally rule, start from the assumption that everything that Gentoo users say about setting-up FreeBSD is wrong. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Tuning make.conf
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:30:05 +0100 "Luca Presotto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe it's possible that when building the kernel it gives some > problem, but I'm thinking about compiling ports. You need to understand that make.conf affects FreeBSD make, which is used for building the base system, and for the ports infrastructure. It's use in ports in analogous to the python part of the Gentoo portage system. The actual port build itself is normally done by gmake (GNU make), because that's determined by the upstream project. Passing -j directly to a port make doesn't make any sense, and breaks the ports system. What you need to do is pass the -j to the underlying gmake in the build stage. I can't remember offhand how to do that, but you can look in bsd.port.mk to see what variables get used. There is also talk of regularizing this this approach by changes to the ports system. Whether or not an individual port works with -j is mostly a matter for the upstream project; many builds will break or become flakey, so any -j settings need to be made per port rather than globally. (BTW if you want to speed-up builds you might also try devel/ccache.) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Tuning make.conf
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:05:27 +0200 "Reko Turja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > MAKEOPTS==-j3 > > CPUTYPE=core2 > > CFLAGS+= --O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing > > Setting CFLAGS can cause errors while compiling and other undesirable > effects, so I recommend leaving CFLAGS undefined. > If you want to optimise things use COPTFLAGS instead. Don't set either of them, they both get set automatically, and messing with COPTFLAGS is potentially more dangerous than with messing CFLAGS. Just set CPUTYPE unless you know what you are doing. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Tuning make.conf
>Isn't -j depend on how many cpu/core and a faster harddisk / raid? Yes, it is. But with j1 you have only one job running at a time. On a dual core you can really easily running at least two jobs at the same time. Then I've read a number of ideas about which is the relation between the number of cores and the optimal number of jobs. I have been suggested something between n+1 and 2n+1 Of course the optimal number of jobs depends on the disk speed and similar. But switching between 1 and 3 gives something like halving the time needed to compile everything. Maybe it's possible that when building the kernel it gives some problem, but I'm thinking about compiling ports. Or does portupgrade automatically chooses which -j to use? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Tuning make.conf
Should my make.conf be like: MAKEOPTS==-j3 CPUTYPE=core2 CFLAGS= --O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing or just: MAKEOPTS==-j3 CPUTYPE=core2 or maybe: MAKEOPTS==-j3 CPUTYPE=core2 CFLAGS+= --O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing Setting CFLAGS can cause errors while compiling and other undesirable effects, so I recommend leaving CFLAGS undefined. If you want to optimise things use COPTFLAGS instead. -Reko ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Tuning make.conf
Hi, On Mar 13, 2008, at 18:58 , Luca Presotto wrote: You're *really* wasting your time. I supposed that! Your system is doing no cpu cycles at all for most of the time anyway. [cut]Also, makeopts and -pipe just make _compiling_ faster, not the applications themselves!!!. I agree with everything. In any case I think that a faster compiling will really be a good thing. I have been reading another time the man of make.conf and I still have some doubts. Neither in the example either in the man page there is any reference to "MAKEOPTS". Changing from -j1 to -j3 would really be a huge difference! Isn't -j depend on how many cpu/core and a faster harddisk / raid? In our small lab we used to install New system on some Very Old SCSI for testing (18G SCSI 2 I think). It takes 2x to 3x more time to build world / kernel than a New SCSI Ultra 320 HD on the Same machine no matter what we put in -j. Faster / Higher IO through put always compile faster. Also there may be problem buildworld and buildkernel if use -j IIRC, other method is required to speed up compiler when build world / kernel. Like not compile everything except what is Really need to be recompile. To be able to set this is very important. Then I don't want an ultra tweaked make.conf like gentooers do. Just a reasonable one. (And you have convinced me, I won't recompile everything. Just to have a good compiling when I will be upgrading) I have some doubts about the correct syntax, the man is ambiguous in this point. If I write CPUTYPE= core2 will it automatically sets all the best safe CFLAGS for my core or just set the -march=core2 Should my make.conf be like: MAKEOPTS==-j3 CPUTYPE=core2 CFLAGS= --O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing or just: MAKEOPTS==-j3 CPUTYPE=core2 or maybe: MAKEOPTS==-j3 CPUTYPE=core2 CFLAGS+= --O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing I remember seeing some thread in Stable@, Question@, Performance@ discuss about best CPUTYPE on AMD64 not long ago. J.H. Please take a look at the following pages, they have a lot more information about this matter ;) http://funroll-loops.info/ http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74072 Actually that's really funny!! I think that's why there are so many pages about gentoo and almost none about other OSes. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Tuning make.conf
>You're *really* wasting your time. I supposed that! >Your system is doing no cpu cycles at all for most of >the time anyway. [cut]Also, makeopts and -pipe just make _compiling_ faster, >not the >applications themselves!!!. I agree with everything. In any case I think that a faster compiling will really be a good thing. I have been reading another time the man of make.conf and I still have some doubts. Neither in the example either in the man page there is any reference to "MAKEOPTS". Changing from -j1 to -j3 would really be a huge difference! To be able to set this is very important. Then I don't want an ultra tweaked make.conf like gentooers do. Just a reasonable one. (And you have convinced me, I won't recompile everything. Just to have a good compiling when I will be upgrading) I have some doubts about the correct syntax, the man is ambiguous in this point. If I write CPUTYPE= core2 will it automatically sets all the best safe CFLAGS for my core or just set the -march=core2 Should my make.conf be like: MAKEOPTS==-j3 CPUTYPE=core2 CFLAGS= --O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing or just: MAKEOPTS==-j3 CPUTYPE=core2 or maybe: MAKEOPTS==-j3 CPUTYPE=core2 CFLAGS+= --O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing >Please take a look at the following pages, they have a lot more >information about this matter ;) >http://funroll-loops.info/ >http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74072 Actually that's really funny!! I think that's why there are so many pages about gentoo and almost none about other OSes. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Tuning make.conf
Luca Presotto wrote: Hi everyone! I was starting to think to recompile everything for my pc to speed up everything. I started googling and I found almost nothing about how to change make.conf on bsd. Almost everything was about Gentoo, somehow not unsurprisingly. The first thing I noticed is that for linux all the instructions are about doing CFLAGS=" value" while it seems from /etc/share/examples/make.conf that in bsd I don't need ". Is it correct? Second question: If I set MAKEOPTS= -j 3 will that be used when portupgrading? (It's really to slow otherwise!) Third question...The most difficult..Which are the best flags for my machine? (freebsd 7.0-RELEASE with an intel centrino core2 duo) I have seen in the ..../examples/etc/make.conf that one of the possible "CPUTYPE" is core2 which looks to me as the right one but a geekier friend of mine that lives inside gentoo-linux told me that this option is unknown is gcc 4.2 and will be working from gcc4.3, so he told me to use "prescott". And what do I have to set to make gcc aware of the type of CPU I have? CPUTYPE= cpu and then CFLAGS= --O2 -pipe (etc..) or should I not write the cputype and then do: CLFAGS= -march=mycpu --O2 etc Can someone give me some advice on how to configure this file? Or can you provide me some documentation? Thank you! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" You're *really* wasting your time. The whole thing about those compiler optimizations is a myth. And most ports are already compiled with -O2 by default IIRC. But why would you spend two days compiling for a 0.1% speed increase? Your system is doing no cpu cycles at all for most of the time anyway. And I really wouldn't recommend aggressive optimizations for stuff like the kernel. Disabling unnecessary services or installing apps you often use without support for X and Y (like installing KDE or Gnome base, then the apps you *really* want on top of it) will give you much better performance than messing with CFLAGS and such. Also, makeopts and -pipe just make _compiling_ faster, not the applications themselves!!!. Please take a look at the following pages, they have a lot more information about this matter ;) http://funroll-loops.info/ http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74072 -- - Marcin ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Tuning make.conf
On Mar 13, 2008, at 17:32 , Luca Presotto wrote: Hi everyone! I was starting to think to recompile everything for my pc to speed up everything. I started googling and I found almost nothing about how to change make.conf on bsd. Almost everything was about Gentoo, somehow not unsurprisingly. Try man make.conf J.H. The first thing I noticed is that for linux all the instructions are about doing CFLAGS=" value" while it seems from /etc/share/examples/ make.conf that in bsd I don't need ". Is it correct? Second question: If I set MAKEOPTS= -j 3 will that be used when portupgrading? (It's really to slow otherwise!) Third question...The most difficult..Which are the best flags for my machine? (freebsd 7.0-RELEASE with an intel centrino core2 duo) I have seen in the ..../examples/etc/make.conf that one of the possible "CPUTYPE" is core2 which looks to me as the right one but a geekier friend of mine that lives inside gentoo-linux told me that this option is unknown is gcc 4.2 and will be working from gcc4.3, so he told me to use "prescott". And what do I have to set to make gcc aware of the type of CPU I have? CPUTYPE= cpu and then CFLAGS= --O2 -pipe (etc..) or should I not write the cputype and then do: CLFAGS= -march=mycpu --O2 etc Can someone give me some advice on how to configure this file? Or can you provide me some documentation? Thank you! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Tuning make.conf
Hi everyone! I was starting to think to recompile everything for my pc to speed up everything. I started googling and I found almost nothing about how to change make.conf on bsd. Almost everything was about Gentoo, somehow not unsurprisingly. The first thing I noticed is that for linux all the instructions are about doing CFLAGS=" value" while it seems from /etc/share/examples/make.conf that in bsd I don't need ". Is it correct? Second question: If I set MAKEOPTS= -j 3 will that be used when portupgrading? (It's really to slow otherwise!) Third question...The most difficult..Which are the best flags for my machine? (freebsd 7.0-RELEASE with an intel centrino core2 duo) I have seen in the ..../examples/etc/make.conf that one of the possible "CPUTYPE" is core2 which looks to me as the right one but a geekier friend of mine that lives inside gentoo-linux told me that this option is unknown is gcc 4.2 and will be working from gcc4.3, so he told me to use "prescott". And what do I have to set to make gcc aware of the type of CPU I have? CPUTYPE= cpu and then CFLAGS= --O2 -pipe (etc..) or should I not write the cputype and then do: CLFAGS= -march=mycpu --O2 etc Can someone give me some advice on how to configure this file? Or can you provide me some documentation? Thank you! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: make.conf CPUTYPE Xeon Conroe?
Alike other users how can you compare the benefits pros/cons of setting the CPU type? Documentation reads otherwise and it only mentions possible cons in one section? # CFLAGS controls the compiler settings used when compiling C code. # Note that optimization settings other than -O and -O2 are not recommended # or supported for compiling the world or the kernel - please revert any # nonstandard optimization settings to "-O" or "-O2 -fno-strict-aliasing" # before submitting bug reports without patches to the developers. I needs proof :) David- Quoting Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:55:48AM -0800, Nerius Landys wrote: I'm running FreeBSD 7.0 on a server with an Intel Xeon Dual-Core 3060 Conroe (2.4GHz) CPU. I'm wondering what I should set CPUTYPE to in my /etc/make.conf. The file /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf has this information: # (Intel CPUs)core2 core nocona pentium4m pentium4 prescott # pentium3m pentium3 pentium-m pentium2 # pentiumpro pentium-mmx pentium i486 i386 I guess those are the possibilities. Which one should I choose for my processor? I would suggest that you *NOT* set the CPUTYPE. The gains are are minimal compared to the pain you will have if you also use the ports system. -- Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- The Internet: an empirical test of the idea that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards can produce Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: make.conf CPUTYPE Xeon Conroe?
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:55:48AM -0800, Nerius Landys wrote: > I'm running FreeBSD 7.0 on a server with an Intel Xeon Dual-Core 3060 > Conroe (2.4GHz) CPU. > I'm wondering what I should set CPUTYPE to in my /etc/make.conf. > The file /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf has this information: > > # (Intel CPUs)core2 core nocona pentium4m pentium4 prescott > # pentium3m pentium3 pentium-m pentium2 > # pentiumpro pentium-mmx pentium i486 i386 > > I guess those are the possibilities. Which one should I choose for my > processor? I would suggest that you *NOT* set the CPUTYPE. The gains are are minimal compared to the pain you will have if you also use the ports system. -- Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- The Internet: an empirical test of the idea that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards can produce Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: make.conf CPUTYPE Xeon Conroe?
Josh Paetzel writes: > As a general rule, setting a CPUTYPE is something you should try > to avoid...there's all sorts of breakage it can cause for very > little gain. Do you have examples? I ask because I've had "CPUTYPE? = p4" on this machine for five years - dozens of buildworlds and possibly thousands of port builds - and never had anything attributable to that go wrong. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: make.conf CPUTYPE Xeon Conroe?
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 11:55:48 am Nerius Landys wrote:
> I'm running FreeBSD 7.0 on a server with an Intel Xeon Dual-Core 3060
> Conroe (2.4GHz) CPU.
> I'm wondering what I should set CPUTYPE to in my /etc/make.conf.
> The file /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf has this information:
>
> # (Intel CPUs)core2 core nocona pentium4m pentium4 prescott
> # pentium3m pentium3 pentium-m pentium2
> # pentiumpro pentium-mmx pentium i486 i386
>
> I guess those are the possibilities. Which one should I choose for my
> processor?
>
> Also, by accident, I had CPUTYPE=p4 in my make.conf when I compiled world,
> kernel, and ports. "p4" is a flag from older FreeBSD distributions I
> think. Will this ("this" meaning both that "p4" may be unrecognized and/or
> it's not my processor type) cause any problems, or should I recompile
> everything with the correct CPUTYPE flag? Installing world is a hassle
> because it's not easy for me to do it from single user mode.
>
> Thanks.
>
> - Nerius
As a general rule, setting a CPUTYPE is something you should try to
avoid...there's all sorts of breakage it can cause for very little gain. If
you're heart is set on it though, your CPU is a core2.
--
Thanks,
Josh Paetzel
PGP: 8A48 EF36 5E9F 4EDA 5A8C 11B4 26F9 01F1 27AF AECB
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
make.conf CPUTYPE Xeon Conroe?
I'm running FreeBSD 7.0 on a server with an Intel Xeon Dual-Core 3060
Conroe (2.4GHz) CPU.
I'm wondering what I should set CPUTYPE to in my /etc/make.conf.
The file /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf has this information:
# (Intel CPUs)core2 core nocona pentium4m pentium4 prescott
# pentium3m pentium3 pentium-m pentium2
# pentiumpro pentium-mmx pentium i486 i386
I guess those are the possibilities. Which one should I choose for my
processor?
Also, by accident, I had CPUTYPE=p4 in my make.conf when I compiled world,
kernel, and ports. "p4" is a flag from older FreeBSD distributions I
think. Will this ("this" meaning both that "p4" may be unrecognized and/or
it's not my processor type) cause any problems, or should I recompile
everything with the correct CPUTYPE flag? Installing world is a hassle
because it's not easy for me to do it from single user mode.
Thanks.
- Nerius
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Via C7 Processor (CPU) - cpufreq and make.conf support
On Oct 24, 2007, at 2:20 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote: I know this is not an answer, but why not just upgrade to 7.0 if you need the C7 support? I'm on 7B3, but when I look at /usr/src/share/examples/etc/make.conf, I just see this # Currently the following CPU types are recognized: # Intel x86 architecture: # (AMD CPUs) opteron athlon64 athlon-mp athlon-xp athlon-4 # athlon-tbird athlon k8 k6-3 k6-2 k6 k5 # (Intel CPUs)core2 core nocona pentium4m pentium4 prescott # pentium3m pentium3 pentium-m pentium2 # pentiumpro pentium-mmx pentium i486 i386 # (Via CPUs) c3 c3-2 # Alpha/AXP architecture: ev67 ev6 pca56 ev56 ev5 ev45 ev4 # AMD64 architecture: opteron, athlon64, nocona, prescott, core2 # Intel ia64 architecture: itanium2, itanium I should note that it appears that the example make.conf is # $FreeBSD: src/share/examples/etc/make.conf,v 1.279 2007/01/17 12:43:06 des Exp $ But I'm using csup tracking *default release=cvs tag=RELENG_7 So can someone point me to where I should look for current (well, 7) information on configuring for Via CPUs? -j ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
6.2->8.0 current w/ custom /etc/make.conf
Hi All, I've many times successfully gone to 7.0 or 8.0 current. cat << EOF > /etc/make.conf NO_ATM=true # do not build ATM related programs and libraries NO_AUTHPF=true # do not build and install authpf (setuid/gid) NO_FORTRAN=true # do not build g77 and related libraries NO_GAMES=true# do not build games (games/ subdir) NO_GPIB=true # do not build GPIB support NO_I4B=true # do not build isdn4bsd package NO_INET6=true# do not build IPv6 related programs and libraries NO_OBJC=true # do not build Objective C support NO_PF=true # do not build PF firewall package NO_PROFILE=true # do not build Profiling libs EOF I have some other things, but they are irrelevant. Next, I follow the standard steps in /usr/src/Makefile to upgrade. including make delete-old delete-old-libs Next, After the final reboot, I did # pkg_add -r bash sudo vim-lite $ sysutils/libchk ; sudo make install clean $ sudo libchk Unresolvable link(s) found in: /sbin/pflogd libc.so.6 libpcap.so.4 libutil.so.5 Unresolvable link(s) found in: /sbin/pfctl libmd.so.3 libm.so.4 libc.so.6 Unresolvable link(s) found in: /sbin/atmconfig libc.so.6 libbsnmp.so.3 /usr/bin/sscop libngatm.so.2 libc.so.6 libnetgraph.so.2 libbegemot.so.2 Obviously, this is because of my /etc/make.conf. I wonder if make delete-old-* should account for and delete related files based on NO_* Knobs ? This was direct installed from 6.2-release CD and _immediately_ upgraded. -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) o:703.549.2050x206 Senior System Admin - Riderway, Inc. http://riderway.com / http://ridecharge.com 1024D/EC88A0BF 0DE5 C55C 6BF3 B235 2DAB B89E 1324 9B4F EC88 A0BF Work like you don't need the money, love like you'll never get hurt, and dance like nobody's watching. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Via C7 Processor (CPU) - cpufreq and make.conf support
On 10/24/07, Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 03:02:21PM -0600, Ross Penner wrote: > > On 10/24/07, Roland Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:25:11PM -0600, Ross Penner wrote: > > > > > What does 'sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq_levels' report? It should list the > > > > > available CPU frequencies. > > > > > > > > > I get: > > > > dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 397/-1 198/-1 > > > > > > > > Is this something I should be reporting to stable? It's not explicitly > > > > mentioned in the hardware notes so I'm not sure if my processor is > > > > actually supported in 6.2. Is it possible that I've been shipped the > > > > wrong processor? If so, how would I be able to tell short of ripping > > > > off the giant heatsink and looking? > > > > > > Have a look at the dmesg output with 'dmesg |head -n 24'. There should > > > be some info about the CPU in there. Post those lines here. > > > > Lines from dmesg: > > > > Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 > > CPU: VIA C7 Esther+RNG+AES+AES-CTR+SHA1+SHA256+RSA (399.40-MHz 686-class > CPU) > > Origin = "CentaurHauls" Id = 0x6a9 Stepping = 9 > > > Features=0xa7c9bbff > > Features2=0x181 > > > > It clearly indicates that it's a 400MHz processor, but the timecounter > > makes me think it' the 1.2 GHz it's supposed to be. > > The 'i8254' timecounter is completely independent of the CPU, and the 'Hz' > value associated with it has nothing to do with the clock frequency of the > CPU. > > > > > > > And have a look at the bios. It could have some settings to regulate the > > > CPU speed. > > > > The BIOS didn't seem to have anything to adjust the CPU speed, but > > while booting I did notice that it declared itself as a via C7 400MHz > > processor. > > It sounds like the CPU actually is running at 400MHz then. > Either that or both the BIOS and FreeBSD misidentifes the CPU speed. > > It could be that the BIOS do not set up the processor correctly. > Are you sure there are no BIOS settings related to the CPU speed? > Have you tried updating the BIOS? I'm not sure that there are no settings, but I'm pretty confident. The system is an VIA Epia EN12000E Mini-ITX so I'd be quite surprised if the BIOS didn't set up the processor correctly. regardless, I upgraded the bios to no avail. I'm going to the via support boards to see if somebody there can help. thank you everybody for your help and I'll post any results. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Via C7 Processor (CPU) - cpufreq and make.conf support
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Roland Smith wrote: On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:25:11PM -0600, Ross Penner wrote: What does 'sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq_levels' report? It should list the available CPU frequencies. I get: dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 397/-1 198/-1 Is this something I should be reporting to stable? It's not explicitly mentioned in the hardware notes so I'm not sure if my processor is actually supported in 6.2. Is it possible that I've been shipped the wrong processor? If so, how would I be able to tell short of ripping off the giant heatsink and looking? Have a look at the dmesg output with 'dmesg |head -n 24'. There should be some info about the CPU in there. Post those lines here. And have a look at the bios. It could have some settings to regulate the CPU speed. Or maybe a related setting like FSB speed (if the Via C7 is like other processors in basing its speed off that). -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Via C7 Processor (CPU) - cpufreq and make.conf support
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 03:02:21PM -0600, Ross Penner wrote: > On 10/24/07, Roland Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:25:11PM -0600, Ross Penner wrote: > > > > What does 'sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq_levels' report? It should list the > > > > available CPU frequencies. > > > > > > > I get: > > > dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 397/-1 198/-1 > > > > > > Is this something I should be reporting to stable? It's not explicitly > > > mentioned in the hardware notes so I'm not sure if my processor is > > > actually supported in 6.2. Is it possible that I've been shipped the > > > wrong processor? If so, how would I be able to tell short of ripping > > > off the giant heatsink and looking? > > > > Have a look at the dmesg output with 'dmesg |head -n 24'. There should > > be some info about the CPU in there. Post those lines here. > > Lines from dmesg: > > Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 > CPU: VIA C7 Esther+RNG+AES+AES-CTR+SHA1+SHA256+RSA (399.40-MHz 686-class CPU) > Origin = "CentaurHauls" Id = 0x6a9 Stepping = 9 > > Features=0xa7c9bbff > Features2=0x181 > > It clearly indicates that it's a 400MHz processor, but the timecounter > makes me think it' the 1.2 GHz it's supposed to be. The 'i8254' timecounter is completely independent of the CPU, and the 'Hz' value associated with it has nothing to do with the clock frequency of the CPU. > > > And have a look at the bios. It could have some settings to regulate the > > CPU speed. > > The BIOS didn't seem to have anything to adjust the CPU speed, but > while booting I did notice that it declared itself as a via C7 400MHz > processor. It sounds like the CPU actually is running at 400MHz then. Either that or both the BIOS and FreeBSD misidentifes the CPU speed. It could be that the BIOS do not set up the processor correctly. Are you sure there are no BIOS settings related to the CPU speed? Have you tried updating the BIOS? -- Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Via C7 Processor (CPU) - cpufreq and make.conf support
On 10/24/07, Roland Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:25:11PM -0600, Ross Penner wrote: > > > What does 'sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq_levels' report? It should list the > > > available CPU frequencies. > > > > > I get: > > dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 397/-1 198/-1 > > > > Is this something I should be reporting to stable? It's not explicitly > > mentioned in the hardware notes so I'm not sure if my processor is > > actually supported in 6.2. Is it possible that I've been shipped the > > wrong processor? If so, how would I be able to tell short of ripping > > off the giant heatsink and looking? > > Have a look at the dmesg output with 'dmesg |head -n 24'. There should > be some info about the CPU in there. Post those lines here. Lines from dmesg: Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 CPU: VIA C7 Esther+RNG+AES+AES-CTR+SHA1+SHA256+RSA (399.40-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = "CentaurHauls" Id = 0x6a9 Stepping = 9 Features=0xa7c9bbff Features2=0x181 It clearly indicates that it's a 400MHz processor, but the timecounter makes me think it' the 1.2 GHz it's supposed to be. > And have a look at the bios. It could have some settings to regulate the > CPU speed. The BIOS didn't seem to have anything to adjust the CPU speed, but while booting I did notice that it declared itself as a via C7 400MHz processor. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Via C7 Processor (CPU) - cpufreq and make.conf support
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:25:11PM -0600, Ross Penner wrote: > > What does 'sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq_levels' report? It should list the > > available CPU frequencies. > > > I get: > dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 397/-1 198/-1 > > Is this something I should be reporting to stable? It's not explicitly > mentioned in the hardware notes so I'm not sure if my processor is > actually supported in 6.2. Is it possible that I've been shipped the > wrong processor? If so, how would I be able to tell short of ripping > off the giant heatsink and looking? Have a look at the dmesg output with 'dmesg |head -n 24'. There should be some info about the CPU in there. Post those lines here. And have a look at the bios. It could have some settings to regulate the CPU speed. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgpPdjsPyuFMi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Via C7 Processor (CPU) - cpufreq and make.conf support
On 10/24/07, Roland Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:25:51PM -0600, Ross Penner wrote: > > > sounds reasonable. unfortunetly, 'sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq' doesn't seem to > > > work on my system. heh, it'd probably work if I upgrade to 7.0 > > > > Apparently I'm an idiot. the sysctl command does work. when the system > > is mostly idle, It outputs '198' and when I put a high cpu load on it, > > it outputs '397'. I'm not exactly sure what this means as I'm hoping > > it doesn't refer to the MHz. > > I'm afraid it does; > > $ sysctl -d dev.cpu.0.freq > dev.cpu.0.freq: Current CPU frequency > > When I see a CPU speed of 1 GHz in conky, I get: > > $ sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq > dev.cpu.0.freq: 1000 > > (on my athlon64) > > What does 'sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq_levels' report? It should list the > available CPU frequencies. > I get: dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 397/-1 198/-1 Is this something I should be reporting to stable? It's not explicitly mentioned in the hardware notes so I'm not sure if my processor is actually supported in 6.2. Is it possible that I've been shipped the wrong processor? If so, how would I be able to tell short of ripping off the giant heatsink and looking? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Via C7 Processor (CPU) - cpufreq and make.conf support
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:25:51PM -0600, Ross Penner wrote: > > sounds reasonable. unfortunetly, 'sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq' doesn't seem to > > work on my system. heh, it'd probably work if I upgrade to 7.0 > > Apparently I'm an idiot. the sysctl command does work. when the system > is mostly idle, It outputs '198' and when I put a high cpu load on it, > it outputs '397'. I'm not exactly sure what this means as I'm hoping > it doesn't refer to the MHz. I'm afraid it does; $ sysctl -d dev.cpu.0.freq dev.cpu.0.freq: Current CPU frequency When I see a CPU speed of 1 GHz in conky, I get: $ sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq dev.cpu.0.freq: 1000 (on my athlon64) What does 'sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq_levels' report? It should list the available CPU frequencies. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgpKR4KFp3cyJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Via C7 Processor (CPU) - cpufreq and make.conf support
On 10/24/07, Ross Penner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/24/07, Erik Cederstrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ross Penner wrote: > > > Hi all, I have a few questions about my Via C7 processor. In > > > examples/make.conf there is an option for the CPUTYPE. It indicates > > > that only the C3 and the C3-2 chips are supported. Does the C7 chip > > > have support that I don't know of? If not, will it? Otherwise, will > > > specifying the chipset as C3 help or hinder my environment? > > > > I know this is not an answer, but why not just upgrade to 7.0 if you > > need the C7 support? > > I probably will. I just thought I'd try and see if I could stay on stable > first. > > > My second question is in regards to the CPU frequency control. I've > > > seen that the C7 gets support for cpufreq in 7 current, but I'm > > > running 6. Without support in cpufreq, what speed would my processor > > > be running at? I've always thought my performance has been lackluster > > > so I suspect it's running at the lower clock speed. > > > > If cpufreq/powerd is not active, your processor is running full-speed. > > You can check this with "sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq" if it's available on > > your system. > > sounds reasonable. unfortunetly, 'sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq' doesn't seem to > work on my system. heh, it'd probably work if I upgrade to 7.0 Apparently I'm an idiot. the sysctl command does work. when the system is mostly idle, It outputs '198' and when I put a high cpu load on it, it outputs '397'. I'm not exactly sure what this means as I'm hoping it doesn't refer to the MHz. It's a 1.2GHz processor. Can somebody help me interpret this result? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Via C7 Processor (CPU) - cpufreq and make.conf support
Ross Penner wrote: On 10/24/07, Erik Cederstrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ross Penner wrote: Hi all, I have a few questions about my Via C7 processor. In examples/make.conf there is an option for the CPUTYPE. It indicates that only the C3 and the C3-2 chips are supported. Does the C7 chip have support that I don't know of? If not, will it? Otherwise, will specifying the chipset as C3 help or hinder my environment? I know this is not an answer, but why not just upgrade to 7.0 if you need the C7 support? I probably will. I just thought I'd try and see if I could stay on stable first. AFAIK 7.0 will be stable while 6.3 will be legacy. Cheers, Erik -- Erik Nørgaard Ph: +34.666334818 http://www.locolomo.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
