Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
I looked at pkgtools.conf, and I don't see a way to do what I want there. My goal here is to make it *easy* for somebody to update the installed ports on a machine. Even if we could use MAKE_ARGS in pkgtools.conf to try and do this that does not solve the problem I am seeing. (There is a bigger problem here - if one uses MAKE_ARGS and wraps a package tarball, one cannot subsequently tell how the package tarball was built. It makes sense then to always create a new port that contains the local mods and name it accordingly.) And it's lame to put information in pkgtools.conf that will need to be duplicated in a ports/*/Makefile.local. Looks like I get to learn ruby, huh? H -- On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 07:38:10PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote: I think a fair number of people would like to see it. It would make it Lots Easier for people to upgrade their systems. There are packages where it makes lots of sense to use the prebuilt ones. Now that I think the only feature I want is for it to don't fetch if there is a Makefile.local I'll see if I can code it up and submit it. Or is there a better way to handle building a port with local modifications besides using a Makefile.local file? There's an alternative way, which is to use pkgtools.conf (see the sample file). You might be able to achieve what you want that way. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
portupgrade -P and local changes
I have a couple of ports where I am using a Makefile.local to provide some customizations for the local environment (I think they are for postfix+SASL, and apache2+the experimental modules, but I could be mistaken) where stock prebuilt packages are available. When I update the installed packages on the box, I like to use: portupgrade -Ppa The problem I have is that when these two ports get upgraded, portupgrade fetches and installs the prebuilt packages, which means I have to remember to then reinstall these two packages from the ports tree. Is there a way to tell portupgrade that it should not *fetch* prebuilt ports for these two packages? If the packages are already there I'm fine having them installed (as it means they were built using the Makefile.local values and wrapped as a package from the -p flag). H ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
On Sunday 26 December 2004 09:04, Harlan Stenn wrote: I have a couple of ports where I am using a Makefile.local to provide some customizations for the local environment (I think they are for postfix+SASL, and apache2+the experimental modules, but I could be mistaken) where stock prebuilt packages are available. When I update the installed packages on the box, I like to use: portupgrade -Ppa The problem I have is that when these two ports get upgraded, portupgrade fetches and installs the prebuilt packages, which means I have to remember to then reinstall these two packages from the ports tree. Is there a way to tell portupgrade that it should not *fetch* prebuilt ports for these two packages? If the packages are already there I'm fine having them installed (as it means they were built using the Makefile.local values and wrapped as a package from the -p flag). One thing you could do is enter them in HOLD_PKGS in pkgtools.conf, so that they wont be upgraded by portupgrade -a ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 01:04:51AM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote:
Is there a way to tell portupgrade that it should not *fetch* prebuilt ports
for these two packages? If the packages are already there I'm fine having
them installed (as it means they were built using the Makefile.local values
and wrapped as a package from the -p flag).
Doesn't it use packages if they're present in the ${PACKAGES}
directory (/usr/ports/packages by default)?
Kris
pgpB7f7H4WTBV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
On Sunday 26 December 2004 03:04 am, Harlan Stenn wrote: I have a couple of ports where I am using a Makefile.local to provide some customizations for the local environment (I think they are for postfix+SASL, and apache2+the experimental modules, but I could be mistaken) where stock prebuilt packages are available. When I update the installed packages on the box, I like to use: portupgrade -Ppa The problem I have is that when these two ports get upgraded, portupgrade fetches and installs the prebuilt packages, which means I have to remember to then reinstall these two packages from the ports tree. Is there a way to tell portupgrade that it should not *fetch* prebuilt ports for these two packages? If the packages are already there I'm fine having them installed (as it means they were built using the Makefile.local values and wrapped as a package from the -p flag). H Hi H. -P is telling portupgrade to check for. download and install a pre-built package if one is available. To my mind, stop using -P and you won't get pre-built packages installed by portupgrade it will use the ports tree to make the upgrade. -- Donald J. O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
Yes, but that means I have to remember to build and package the ports
first, before I do anything else, and that implies I have to handle any
changed prerequisite packages as well.
If a way can be found to say Do not fetch these packages then this will
become a much easier process.
H
--
Is there a way to tell portupgrade that it should not *fetch* prebuilt ports
for these two packages? If the packages are already there I'm fine having
them installed (as it means they were built using the Makefile.local values
and wrapped as a package from the -p flag).
Doesn't it use packages if they're present in the ${PACKAGES}
directory (/usr/ports/packages by default)?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 01:36:12PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote: Yes, but that means I have to remember to build and package the ports first, before I do anything else, and that implies I have to handle any changed prerequisite packages as well. I thought that's what you were asking for. If a way can be found to say Do not fetch these packages then this will become a much easier process. portupgrade -x or set HOLD_PKGS. Kris pgp3ZJtHijHWc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want. I *want* to upgrade the software, I just do not want to FETCH prebuilt packages for any package that has a Makefile.local file in the tree, as a Makefile.local file means I want to build that package with local changes. H -- On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 01:36:12PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote: Yes, but that means I have to remember to build and package the ports first, before I do anything else, and that implies I have to handle any changed prerequisite packages as well. I thought that's what you were asking for. If a way can be found to say Do not fetch these packages then this will become a much easier process. portupgrade -x or set HOLD_PKGS. Kris --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBz13CWry0BWjoQKURAmQ4AKClNMfFaC6lbJbvKyCXZ/PbJFsGUgCfT+f8 RdKaLt13sz4+G6u6m8/AyGM= =P4CC -END PGP SIGNATURE- --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx-- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 06:53:09PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote: Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want. I *want* to upgrade the software, I just do not want to FETCH prebuilt packages for any package that has a Makefile.local file in the tree, as a Makefile.local file means I want to build that package with local changes. That's a very specific requirement, then, and I don't think portupgrade can do it. Kris pgp8liBtYEciW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 06:53:09PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote: Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want. I *want* to upgrade the software, I just do not want to FETCH prebuilt packages for any package that has a Makefile.local file in the tree, as a Makefile.local file means I want to build that package with local changes. That's a very specific requirement, then, and I don't think portupgrade can do it. Kris A snippet from the portupgrade manpage. Note the execution model... Pay close attention to item 1 (-P). I dunno - it's seems fairly clear to me that the manpage does a fine job detailing just what parm does when. Again, to me at least - this thread should have halted by telling the user to view the manpage. Just my slice of cheescake. Now read below from the manpage... TECHNICAL DETAILS portupgrade upgrades installed packages via ports or packages without necessarily having to reinstall required or dependent packages by adjust- ing the package registry database. The procedures it takes are briefly shown as below: 1. If -P is not given, jump to 4. Otherwise search the local directories listed in PKG_PATH for a newer package tarball. If found, jump to 5. 2. Fetch the latest package from a remote site using pkg_fetch(1). If the fetched package is the latest, jump to 5. If -P is given twice (i.e. -PP) and the fetched package is not the latest but at least newer than the current instal- lation, jump to 5. 3. If -P is given twice (i.e. -PP), stop the task. 4. Build the corresponding port of the given installed package. 5. Fix the dependency information of the packages that depend on the given package. 6. Back up the current installation of the given package using pkg_create(1). Note that the backup tarball will be very large if the package is a big monster like XFree86. Please ensure you have sufficient disk space (refer to the ENVIRON- MENT section to know where) to save the backup tarball. (Per- haps a new option to omit backups will be added in the future) 7. Back up the current package registration files of the given package. 8. Uninstall the given package forcibly, preserving shared libraries unless -u is specified. 9. Install the new version via ports or packages, depending on the conditions in 1, 2 and 3. 10. If the installation fails, 10.1. Restore the old installation backed up in 6. 10.2. Restore the old package registration files backed up in 7. 10.3. Revert the dependency information fixed in 5. 11. Remove the dependencies obsoleted in this upgrade. 12. Run ``portsclean -L'' to delete duplicate libraries and put away old libraries. 13. Run ``pkgdb -aF'' to fix up stale dependencies and reconstruct +REQUIRED_BY files. -- Best regards, Chris To erase a line you've written at the command prompt, use Ctrl-U. -- Dru [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: portupgrade -P and local changes
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 09:22:04PM -0600, Chris wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 06:53:09PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote: Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want. I *want* to upgrade the software, I just do not want to FETCH prebuilt packages for any package that has a Makefile.local file in the tree, as a Makefile.local file means I want to build that package with local changes. That's a very specific requirement, then, and I don't think portupgrade can do it. Kris A snippet from the portupgrade manpage. Note the execution model... Pay close attention to item 1 (-P). I dunno - it's seems fairly clear to me that the manpage does a fine job detailing just what parm does when. Again, to me at least - this thread should have halted by telling the user to view the manpage. Er..the thread started with a question from a user who *knows about -P and uses it*, but doesn't want portupgrade to fetch packages in a specific situation. Kris pgpHquYKbEqWu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 09:22:04PM -0600, Chris wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 06:53:09PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote: Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want. I *want* to upgrade the software, I just do not want to FETCH prebuilt packages for any package that has a Makefile.local file in the tree, as a Makefile.local file means I want to build that package with local changes. That's a very specific requirement, then, and I don't think portupgrade can do it. Kris A snippet from the portupgrade manpage. Note the execution model... Pay close attention to item 1 (-P). I dunno - it's seems fairly clear to me that the manpage does a fine job detailing just what parm does when. Again, to me at least - this thread should have halted by telling the user to view the manpage. Er..the thread started with a question from a user who *knows about -P and uses it*, but doesn't want portupgrade to fetch packages in a specific situation. Kris Again, from the manpage ... -x GLOB --exclude GLOB Exclude packages matching the specified glob pattern. Exclusion is performed after recursing dependency in response to -r and/or -R, which means, for example, the following command will upgrade all the packages depending on XFree86 but leave XFree86 as it is: portupgrade -rx XFree86 XFree86 -- Best regards, Chris You may be recognized soon. Hide! If they find you, lie. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
I think a fair number of people would like to see it. It would make it Lots Easier for people to upgrade their systems. There are packages where it makes lots of sense to use the prebuilt ones. Now that I think the only feature I want is for it to don't fetch if there is a Makefile.local I'll see if I can code it up and submit it. Or is there a better way to handle building a port with local modifications besides using a Makefile.local file? Thanks... H ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
Chris wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 09:22:04PM -0600, Chris wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 06:53:09PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote: Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want. I *want* to upgrade the software, I just do not want to FETCH prebuilt packages for any package that has a Makefile.local file in the tree, as a Makefile.local file means I want to build that package with local changes. That's a very specific requirement, then, and I don't think portupgrade can do it. Kris A snippet from the portupgrade manpage. Note the execution model... Pay close attention to item 1 (-P). I dunno - it's seems fairly clear to me that the manpage does a fine job detailing just what parm does when. Again, to me at least - this thread should have halted by telling the user to view the manpage. Er..the thread started with a question from a user who *knows about -P and uses it*, but doesn't want portupgrade to fetch packages in a specific situation. Kris Again, from the manpage ... -x GLOB --exclude GLOB Exclude packages matching the specified glob pattern. Exclusion is performed after recursing dependency in response to -r and/or -R, which means, for example, the following command will upgrade all the packages depending on XFree86 but leave XFree86 as it is: portupgrade -rx XFree86 XFree86 Well now - that didn't format like I expected. Sorry about that. Nonetheless, I think the manpage reflects the point. -- Best regards, Chris You may be recognized soon. Hide! If they find you, lie. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 09:41:04PM -0600, Chris wrote: Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want. Er..the thread started with a question from a user who *knows about -P and uses it*, but doesn't want portupgrade to fetch packages in a specific situation. Kris Again, from the manpage ... -x GLOB Well now - that didn't format like I expected. Sorry about that. Nonetheless, I think the manpage reflects the point. You're the one who's really not paying attention..see the first line of the message, which was the response when I suggested -x. Are we all caught up now? Good :) Kris pgpQpAh3ze9Lj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 07:38:10PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote: I think a fair number of people would like to see it. It would make it Lots Easier for people to upgrade their systems. There are packages where it makes lots of sense to use the prebuilt ones. Now that I think the only feature I want is for it to don't fetch if there is a Makefile.local I'll see if I can code it up and submit it. Or is there a better way to handle building a port with local modifications besides using a Makefile.local file? There's an alternative way, which is to use pkgtools.conf (see the sample file). You might be able to achieve what you want that way. Kris pgp6kZYAhL2wG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: portupgrade -P and local changes
Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 09:41:04PM -0600, Chris wrote: Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want. Er..the thread started with a question from a user who *knows about -P and uses it*, but doesn't want portupgrade to fetch packages in a specific situation. Kris Again, from the manpage ... -x GLOB Well now - that didn't format like I expected. Sorry about that. Nonetheless, I think the manpage reflects the point. You're the one who's really not paying attention..see the first line of the message, which was the response when I suggested -x. Are we all caught up now? Good :) Kris Hahaha - Leave me alone. It's been a long and tiring Xmas (Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket). -- Best regards, Chris A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
