Re: Is SSL really a dependant of everything?
On Apr 6, 2020, at 06:49, Dave Horsfall wrote: > Was just communing with nature, and I see that "clang" finally got built; > it's now hammering on "gnutls" so I may as well go back to bed and pick up > the debris in the morning... I did put in an update of wine yesterday, so we now have current universal packages of all of its dependencies.
Re: Is SSL really a dependant of everything?
Was just communing with nature, and I see that "clang" finally got built; it's now hammering on "gnutls" so I may as well go back to bed and pick up the debris in the morning... -- Dave
Re: Is SSL really a dependant of everything?
On Apr 6, 2020, at 03:39, Christopher Jones wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2020, at 8:42 am, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> You should not routinely use the -p flag like this.
>>
>> I did that following advice on this list about a year ago, when some port
>> ("guile"?) that I'd never even heard of would not build.
I do not recommend it. You should almost never use the -p flag. I'm uncertain
why we have this flag at all.
Using the -p flag to proceed to build an outdated port P, despite the fact that
one of its dependencies D could not be updated, can defeat the purpose of
upgrading the port P. One possible result, depending on the reason why port D
was updated, if you got a binary of the updated port P, is that port P will
then immediately be considered broken and will need to be rebuilt from source.
And once the problem with port D is fixed and you're able to upgrade it, you'll
then find port P is broken again and will need to be refetched or rebuilt again.
Rev-upgrade can only detect certain kinds of brokenness (i.e. library linkage
errors). It's completely possible that by proceeding to update a port P despite
failure of updating its dependency D you will introduce an unintended behavior
into the upgraded port P that MacPorts cannot detect. Port P will then no
longer show as outdated, even though it does not necessarily correspond to what
you should have for that version / revision.
You mentioned that you use "port upgrade -p outdated". Note that single-dash /
single-letter flags like -p are global and do nothing unless you place them
immediately after the command "port", e.g. (but don't do this!) "sudo port -p
upgrade foo". In contrast, double-dash / multiple-letter flags like
--no-rev-upgrade are specific to each command verb and must be placed after the
command verb, e.g. "sudo port -u upgrade --no-rev-upgrade foo".
>>> Do you mean openssl? or libressl? or something else?
>>
>> openssl-1.1.1f_0+universal.darwin_16.i386-x86_64
>
> So from the above you can tell you are using the universal variant of the
> package.
>
> Looking at
>
> http://packages.macports.org/openssl/
>
> you can see these variants used to be built by the buildbots and thus
> distributed in binary form, however this appears to have stopped for the more
> recent versions. This is why you had to build it from source, and likely why
> you are having to build a lot of dependencies from source.
>
> Why this was done, intentionally or otherwise, I do not know.
A universal package will only be produced by our buildbot when something is
committed that requires it.
Three such ports are wine, wine-devel, and wine-crossover. Wine requires 32-bit
support which means that on 64-bit systems it requires universal dependencies.
I used to update the wine ports regularly; a new development version of wine
would appear every two weeks. So universal packages for all of wine's
dependencies would be produced every two weeks.
I haven't been updating the wine ports lately. I intend to get back to doing
that.
It would be nice if we always built a universal version of a port if we had
ever built a universal version of that port before. However we have not
implemented that feature in our buildbot yet. See
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/35897#comment:20
If you don't need to use the universal variant (or any other particular
variant) of a port, reinstall it with its default set of variants to make it
more likely that you will receive a binary package.
Re: Is SSL really a dependant of everything?
> On 6 Apr 2020, at 8:42 am, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> You should not routinely use the -p flag like this.
>
> I did that following advice on this list about a year ago, when some port
> ("guile"?) that I'd never even heard of would not build.
>
>> Do you mean openssl? or libressl? or something else?
>
> openssl-1.1.1f_0+universal.darwin_16.i386-x86_64
So from the above you can tell you are using the universal variant of the
package.
Looking at
http://packages.macports.org/openssl/
you can see these variants used to be built by the buildbots and thus
distributed in binary form, however this appears to have stopped for the more
recent versions. This is why you had to build it from source, and likely why
you are having to build a lot of dependencies from source.
Why this was done, intentionally or otherwise, I do not know.
Chris
> All the same to me, and I don't touch any config files except under advice
> (such as using Australian repositories etc); when it comes to the Mac I'm
> just a dumb end-user (except for the Unix-like bits, in which case not many
> people can match me...).
>
> I'm about to go to bed (been a long day for me, and not because of this) so
> I'll likely not reply in turn right away; yawn...
>
> Current CPU temp is 81˚ C (I could have boiled an egg on the older MacBook by
> now; this one has much better cooling).
>
> -- Dave
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Is SSL really a dependant of everything?
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
You should not routinely use the -p flag like this.
I did that following advice on this list about a year ago, when some port
("guile"?) that I'd never even heard of would not build.
Do you mean openssl? or libressl? or something else?
openssl-1.1.1f_0+universal.darwin_16.i386-x86_64
All the same to me, and I don't touch any config files except under advice
(such as using Australian repositories etc); when it comes to the Mac I'm
just a dumb end-user (except for the Unix-like bits, in which case not
many people can match me...).
I'm about to go to bed (been a long day for me, and not because of this)
so I'll likely not reply in turn right away; yawn...
Current CPU temp is 81˚ C (I could have boiled an egg on the older MacBook
by now; this one has much better cooling).
-- Dave
Re: Is SSL really a dependant of everything?
On Apr 6, 2020, at 00:21, Dave Horsfall wrote: > So this morning I do my weekly "port selfupdate" and "port upgrade -p > outdated" (I use "-p" to make it keep going with the rest of the ports, come > hell or high water), You should not routinely use the -p flag like this. > and after updating SSL it's now rebuilding what appears to be the rest of the > world (cmake, llvm, clang, assorted other ports etc). Do you mean openssl? or libressl? or something else?
