Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:18:04AM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: > Really, I am tired of those arrogant answers from some OpenBSD gurus! > Who the hell they are to talk like that! I'm just the guy who wrote 99% of the documentation of the ports and package tree you're currently using, and who also wrote most of the current code in bsd.port.mk and pkg_add. That entitles me to some arrogance. If I tell you make update does not do what you think it does, and that it's not going to change in *my system*, I have every right to say so. If you don't like it, you can write your own tools. It works very well as it currently is. Your comments do show that we are missing some documentation so that people like you won't be misled, and I will write that documentation when I have time. In the meantime, you can trust what I say.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On 平成 20/08/29, at 19:23, macintoshzoom wrote: Hi Owain Ainsworth, Owain Ainsworth wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 03:40:54PM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: Yes I have to do it, buy I'm a non-conformist, I've found that 90% of the time when someone says that they actually mean: ``I'm too stupid to know I'm doing it wrong''. Yes, may be you are right and ``I'm too stupid to know I'm doing it wrong''. Since I'm something of an outsider here, myself, I'll translate that for you. BSD does things differently from Linux. openBSD does things a bit differently from the other BSDs, kind of like debian does things differently from Fedora. (But don't draw any other parallels. Just understand that they're different.) Even in the Linux world, what you're proposing is no small task. Forking (and producing anything useful) is an even bigger task if you have just started trying out a distribution. (BTW, it could be argued that openBSD is _not_ a distro, not even a distro of BSD.) So, if you want to build wonderfully_easy_to_use_openBSD (cough), you need to spend some time actually using openBSD, maybe even a lot of time. And you should probably understand one thing more. The guys who use openBSD the most are the ones who do the dev work. Everything there has a reason. It may not agree with your reasons and ideas, but, especially if you are planning a fork, you should understand their reasons and think carefully about your own before _you_ start modifying _your_ _versions_ of the tools. If your versions work for you, some of the guys here may be interesting in looking at them, but there is no guarantee they'll accept them for folding back into openBSD. Which is one of the reasons you'll need a lot of disk space of your own, and a way to keep track of the changes you make. (You think you're short of space now?) Many of us who use openBSD find it easier to own several machines with different OSses and just use the closest fit for each job. Which isn't to say you should forget entirely about your fork, just that you need to move your personal deadlines back and schedule lots more time for learning the tools and such. Joel Rees (who often finds himself needing to take the same advice)
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:18:04AM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: > Really, I am tired of those arrogant answers from some OpenBSD gurus! > Who the hell they are to talk like that! actual OpenBSD developers, who've taken the time to read the docs and figure things out on their own, and then improved OpenBSD where they felt it needed improvement, and then documented it. so, yeah, they might get a little salty when someone complains about a "problem", when there is no problem other than a lack of effort by the complainer to read the docs to understand the "problem". -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:18:04AM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: >> I know thanks for noticing. > > You are too "arrogant" to say this. I said only a diplomatic "you MAY". > And I am also at least as "arrogant" and strong as you... It isn't arrogance if you're right. >>> But, I am building an OpenBSD-KDE PC Desktop distro (focused on >>> usability for the masses including top privacy/security >>> implementations) and on my experimental -current box I want to be >>> forward to stable-s to test and tweak everything asap. And you can. Don't know why you keep bringing this up. > I am asking for help to do what I want to do if someone on this forum is > so kind to help me. Period. Asking for help usually doesn't include words like "I want, it should, I don't like it, etc" > > Thanks for your "go away from us (arrogant elitist) owners of OpenBSD > superOS that is not available to-the-(stupid)-masses where you belong". > > Really, I am tired of those arrogant answers from some OpenBSD gurus! > Who the hell they are to talk like that! > They look as if they where tortured souls unable to be kind to the world > and unable to help humanity to grow up to their knowledge standard > levels. I am tired of a bunch of morons asking for crap that is stupid to start with and then complain when they are told that they are wrong. Here is an idea, the folks who wrote it told you so maybe you should consider what was said. This has nothing to do with elitism, this has to do with the recipient being unable to deal with the answer. > > This matter will be a thread question doubled with an independent > wikisite so as everybody can talk and rate without any orwellian mailist > censorship nor scare about OpenBSD forum posters (including me!), and to > publish their free-speech opinions about each individual this developers > forum hosts. Because there are some ones to really include in your junk > mail client filter so bad-guys they are! People answered your questions. You didn't like the answer and proceeded with whining and how YOU are going to make it better. > development tool to where? to the same auto-preservation for the > arrogant elitists superOS (sorry I laugh here, this looks as classic > anti dictatorial-regime panflets!), or to benefit humanity? Development tool is something developers use to achieve a goal. That goal is incompatible with your "view". You want to have other people add features that are dumb and completely irrelevant to a development tool. Guess how people will react? For your convenience binary packages are made available and you are still complaining. > I am ALREADY on Linux, making efforts to port a better OpenBSD OS to the > Linux and Windows masses (thanks for your help), if you Marco Peereboom > give me your permission, of course ... OpenBSD is open to the world. It will however not cave to demands that are unreasonable and/or stupid. > .. or may be you prefer to keep OpenBSD for your own private club use > and mods? I write code and give it away; guess what the answer is. Where are your contributions? Diatribes coming from some random guy on the internet that doesn't even seem to have a real name don't count.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
Okay revenge of the nerds, can this go somewhere where us "arrogant" smart folks don't have to be bothered by the cruft? I suggest misc@ for you macintoshzoom, you'll feel at home. Thanks. Brandon On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:18 PM, macintoshzoom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Hi Marco Peereboom, > > Marco Peereboom wrote: > >> Yes you may be right. >>> >> >> I know thanks for noticing. >> > > You are too "arrogant" to say this. I said only a diplomatic "you MAY". > And I am also at least as "arrogant" and strong as you... > > >> But, I am building an OpenBSD-KDE PC Desktop distro (focused on >>> usability for the masses including top privacy/security implementations) >>> and on my experimental -current box I want to be forward to stable-s to >>> test and tweak everything asap. >>> >> > > >> Which means you know what you are doing >> > > Yes I know, and I know what I don't know, and then I would welcome any > tips, tricks and help from others who yes they know, and hopely would be so > kind to communicate their knowledge to us, ignorants, or preserve their > knowledge for themselves and their elitist friends sectarian (ala > ku-klux-clan) group and dead with it for ever. You chose. > > > and can therefore take your > >> whining elsewhere. >> > > I am not whining anything, even less from you that I don know at all, nor > you seem a kind guy. Please get away from my postings, if you plan to > continue to offend me. I don't need you, thanks. Period. Waste your time > annoying someone elsewhere. > > I am asking for help to do what I want to do if someone on this forum is so > kind to help me. Period. > > Thanks for your "go away from us (arrogant elitist) owners of OpenBSD > superOS that is not available to-the-(stupid)-masses where you belong". > > Really, I am tired of those arrogant answers from some OpenBSD gurus! Who > the hell they are to talk like that! > They look as if they where tortured souls unable to be kind to the world > and unable to help humanity to grow up to their knowledge standard levels. > > This matter will be a thread question doubled with an independent wikisite > so as everybody can talk and rate without any orwellian mailist censorship > nor scare about OpenBSD forum posters (including me!), and to publish their > free-speech opinions about each individual this developers forum hosts. > Because there are some ones to really include in your junk mail client > filter so bad-guys they are! > > Please, Marco Peereboom, this is not including you, I don't know you (yet) > at all. Just your sad "and can therefore take your whining elsewhere" was > not a good start. > > > Our ports system isn't trying to be just like any > >> other Linux distro. It is meant as a development tool >> > > development tool to where? to the same auto-preservation for the arrogant > elitists superOS (sorry I laugh here, this looks as classic anti > dictatorial-regime panflets!), or to benefit humanity? > > not as a > >> OMGUSERFEATURES!!! thing. >> > > Please tell me what you mean with "OMGUSERFEATURES!!! thing" , I like to > known any criticism on my job, but I am not an english native nor I > understand any jargons and the like (yet). > > >> And the current 4.3 OpenBSD isn't ready at all for this, I have to tweak >>> (read pre-configure the sustem for my focused users, create automated >>> scripts, create artwork, etc.) many, many things, thousands hours job, >>> most of them are currently feasible but must be properly configurated. >>> >> >> You are the one who wants this so you get to do it all by yourself. >> OpenBSD and the ports system does not sit in any way shape or form in >> your way. You are simply complaining because you don't know how to use >> the ports system (and therefore shouldn't). >> >> I am afraid that you need to go back to Linux. They do all that >> bleeding anus stuff that you want. Like http://lwn.net/Articles/295134/ >> >> > I will read the link, thanks. > > I am ALREADY on Linux, making efforts to port a better OpenBSD OS to the > Linux and Windows masses (thanks for your help), if you Marco Peereboom give > me your permission, of course ... > .. or may be you prefer to keep OpenBSD for your own private club use and > mods? > > Mac. > >
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:18:04AM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: > Yes I know, and I know what I don't know, and then I would welcome any > tips, tricks and help from others who yes they know, and hopely would be > so kind to communicate their knowledge to us, ignorants, or preserve > their knowledge for themselves and their elitist friends sectarian (ala > ku-klux-clan) group and dead with it for ever. You chose. bsd.port.mk(5) > Really, I am tired of those arrogant answers from some OpenBSD gurus! > Who the hell they are to talk like that! Well, you kind of had it coming to you, with "it's not doing what I want it to and therefore it's stupid!" > Our ports system isn't trying to be just like any >> other Linux distro. It is meant as a development tool > > development tool to where? to the same auto-preservation for the > arrogant elitists superOS (sorry I laugh here, this looks as classic > anti dictatorial-regime panflets!), or to benefit humanity? http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports second paragraph. > not as a >> OMGUSERFEATURES!!! thing. > > Please tell me what you mean with "OMGUSERFEATURES!!! thing" , I like to > known any criticism on my job, but I am not an english native nor I > understand any jargons and the like (yet). http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html "Easy installation of desktop system" is not listed there. It's a nice side effect, but not a goal as such. Also, people here are not big on graphical installers, and clicking through various options. -- viq pgpoMj4fVZs6L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
This is an OpenBSD ports list. This is not a macintoshzoomBSD list. Take your whining elsewhere. P.S. We know Marco is arrogant; we wouldn't want him any other way. :) -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net/
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
Hi Marco Peereboom, Marco Peereboom wrote: Yes you may be right. I know thanks for noticing. You are too "arrogant" to say this. I said only a diplomatic "you MAY". And I am also at least as "arrogant" and strong as you... But, I am building an OpenBSD-KDE PC Desktop distro (focused on usability for the masses including top privacy/security implementations) and on my experimental -current box I want to be forward to stable-s to test and tweak everything asap. Which means you know what you are doing Yes I know, and I know what I don't know, and then I would welcome any tips, tricks and help from others who yes they know, and hopely would be so kind to communicate their knowledge to us, ignorants, or preserve their knowledge for themselves and their elitist friends sectarian (ala ku-klux-clan) group and dead with it for ever. You chose. and can therefore take your whining elsewhere. I am not whining anything, even less from you that I don know at all, nor you seem a kind guy. Please get away from my postings, if you plan to continue to offend me. I don't need you, thanks. Period. Waste your time annoying someone elsewhere. I am asking for help to do what I want to do if someone on this forum is so kind to help me. Period. Thanks for your "go away from us (arrogant elitist) owners of OpenBSD superOS that is not available to-the-(stupid)-masses where you belong". Really, I am tired of those arrogant answers from some OpenBSD gurus! Who the hell they are to talk like that! They look as if they where tortured souls unable to be kind to the world and unable to help humanity to grow up to their knowledge standard levels. This matter will be a thread question doubled with an independent wikisite so as everybody can talk and rate without any orwellian mailist censorship nor scare about OpenBSD forum posters (including me!), and to publish their free-speech opinions about each individual this developers forum hosts. Because there are some ones to really include in your junk mail client filter so bad-guys they are! Please, Marco Peereboom, this is not including you, I don't know you (yet) at all. Just your sad "and can therefore take your whining elsewhere" was not a good start. Our ports system isn't trying to be just like any other Linux distro. It is meant as a development tool development tool to where? to the same auto-preservation for the arrogant elitists superOS (sorry I laugh here, this looks as classic anti dictatorial-regime panflets!), or to benefit humanity? not as a OMGUSERFEATURES!!! thing. Please tell me what you mean with "OMGUSERFEATURES!!! thing" , I like to known any criticism on my job, but I am not an english native nor I understand any jargons and the like (yet). And the current 4.3 OpenBSD isn't ready at all for this, I have to tweak (read pre-configure the sustem for my focused users, create automated scripts, create artwork, etc.) many, many things, thousands hours job, most of them are currently feasible but must be properly configurated. You are the one who wants this so you get to do it all by yourself. OpenBSD and the ports system does not sit in any way shape or form in your way. You are simply complaining because you don't know how to use the ports system (and therefore shouldn't). I am afraid that you need to go back to Linux. They do all that bleeding anus stuff that you want. Like http://lwn.net/Articles/295134/ I will read the link, thanks. I am ALREADY on Linux, making efforts to port a better OpenBSD OS to the Linux and Windows masses (thanks for your help), if you Marco Peereboom give me your permission, of course ... .. or may be you prefer to keep OpenBSD for your own private club use and mods? Mac.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
Hi Stuart Henderson, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2008/08/29 04:23, macintoshzoom wrote: This is why many times I want ports, most times it's just a matter or weeks to be ahead. I am not a standard OpenBSD consumer, that will await sit-down for packages or snapshots when they are not complying my needs. Build your own then... If you have distfiles already, see mirroring-ports(7), a full bulk build on most modern i386 or amd64 hardware is under a week and I think can be done ok for one arch with an 80GB disk. Will see the mirroring-ports tool to find how it can help my project. Thanks. Mac.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
> Yes you may be right. I know thanks for noticing. > > But, I am building an OpenBSD-KDE PC Desktop distro (focused on > usability for the masses including top privacy/security implementations) > and on my experimental -current box I want to be forward to stable-s to > test and tweak everything asap. Which means you know what you are doing and can therefore take your whining elsewhere. Our ports system isn't trying to be just like any other Linux distro. It is meant as a development tool not as a OMGUSERFEATURES!!! thing. > > And the current 4.3 OpenBSD isn't ready at all for this, I have to tweak > (read pre-configure the sustem for my focused users, create automated > scripts, create artwork, etc.) many, many things, thousands hours job, > most of them are currently feasible but must be properly configurated. You are the one who wants this so you get to do it all by yourself. OpenBSD and the ports system does not sit in any way shape or form in your way. You are simply complaining because you don't know how to use the ports system (and therefore shouldn't). I am afraid that you need to go back to Linux. They do all that bleeding anus stuff that you want. Like http://lwn.net/Articles/295134/ > > Mac. >
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On 2008/08/29 04:23, macintoshzoom wrote: > This is why many times I want ports, most times it's just a matter or > weeks to be ahead. > I am not a standard OpenBSD consumer, that will await sit-down for > packages or snapshots when they are not complying my needs. Build your own then... If you have distfiles already, see mirroring-ports(7), a full bulk build on most modern i386 or amd64 hardware is under a week and I think can be done ok for one arch with an 80GB disk.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On 2008/08/29 05:27, macintoshzoom wrote: > ... even if sometime I don't agree with > you (at all) on the way currently pkg_add (or other things) sometimes > works, good for an industrial/firewall/server OS managed by paid > experts, ok, let's take this section, as it's something that may be useful to look at for OpenBSD (rather than macintoshzoomknoppixalikeBSD).. what problem do you have with pkg_add updates? what usability features do you think are missing?
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 05:27:37AM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: > Hi Marc Espie, > > > Marc Espie wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:31:32PM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: >>> On my 4.4 i386 make update on ports kde fetches the distfiles/sources >>> and build the packages even when not installed at all nor requested. >> >> Yes, that's a feature... > > As you may have read, I have about 90% kde installed (from packages) and > I wanted to try latest kde cvs port tree, to see for improvements I want. > But I was candid thinking that make update on ports/x11/kde should be > clever enough to detect what packages are already installed to update > them from the ports. > My mistake ended with some GB of unrequired nor installed nor requested > distfiles and packages fetched and built by make update, leaving my box > (/usr) out of space. > > >> >> make update has to build the packages to know whether or not it needs >> to update them. > > It should be a better and clever way to do that, instead of downloading > huge MBs and spending huge hours creating useless packages to say later > "not installed, not update required" or something like that. > At least it could be so kind to delete the useless distfiles and > packages, or creating those in the tmp partition, till verification of > if they are really needed. That's not the intent of make update. Sorry, it's useful for us, we won't change semantics of make update. The goal is to keep it simple stupid, and doing what you would want is - ways more complicated - has no actual benefits. There are loads of ways to do things the way you want, you can very easily produce a SUBDIRLIST of what's installed on your machine, and use it to drive ports. Or you can read the documentation of pkg_add and fiddle with PKG_PATH.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
Hi Marc Espie, Marc Espie wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:31:32PM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: On my 4.4 i386 make update on ports kde fetches the distfiles/sources and build the packages even when not installed at all nor requested. Yes, that's a feature... As you may have read, I have about 90% kde installed (from packages) and I wanted to try latest kde cvs port tree, to see for improvements I want. But I was candid thinking that make update on ports/x11/kde should be clever enough to detect what packages are already installed to update them from the ports. My mistake ended with some GB of unrequired nor installed nor requested distfiles and packages fetched and built by make update, leaving my box (/usr) out of space. make update has to build the packages to know whether or not it needs to update them. It should be a better and clever way to do that, instead of downloading huge MBs and spending huge hours creating useless packages to say later "not installed, not update required" or something like that. At least it could be so kind to delete the useless distfiles and packages, or creating those in the tmp partition, till verification of if they are really needed. You can reverse the process by running pkg_add -ui with a SRC url in the PKG_PATH. That's look interesting, what kind d of SRC url do you mean about? Where do you like to setup the PKG_PATH env? This is usually rather painful, if you can live with compiled snapshot packages, that's simpler. Painful or not, I want/need to be to the bleeding edge versions of what is available to test. Except for the few people who actually develop new ports and perform quality insurance on the existing builds, it's much simpler to just use the binary packages for most things, and only build from source when you really have a good reason to do so. My needs are: 1- To create an easy way, from an (nearly) exclusively KDE easy-to-use-for-the-masses graphical system, to update/upgrade the system for a worldwide select users to the latest stable OpenBSD packages + to my own packages repository (updated when I can, daily, weekly, and not on a 6 months basis) of specific created or tweaked by my own. 2- For my own experimental box, to know how to deal properly with the ports system (avoiding those out-of-space issues that I had e.g. because of my error doing make update on the kde ports folder). Thanks Marc Espie for all your past replies to my postings, every word is carefully taken in count, ... even if sometime I don't agree with you (at all) on the way currently pkg_add (or other things) sometimes works, good for an industrial/firewall/server OS managed by paid experts, but I need some extra usability features as I am creating an OpenBSD-KDE Desktop distro focused on usability for the masses and implementing top privacy/security features. Mac
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 04:21:34PM -0400, Brad wrote: > On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:31:32 -0600 > macintoshzoom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On my 4.4 i386 make update on ports kde fetches the distfiles/sources > > and build the packages even when not installed at all nor requested. > > > > As some one of you know, the full sources of kde on a slow connection > > can be desperately lng. > > > > I asked: > > # env FORCE_UPDATE=yes env FORCE_ALWAYSUPDATE=yes \ > > env FORCE_UPDATEDEPENDS=yes make update > > > > perhaps this is my error? > > It is a combination of three issues.. the way make update works, the way the > ports tree works and your expectation. > > First off, make update really does not work the way most users would probably > think it should work under the most ideal conditions. It is more or less meant > to be run in each directory to update individual ports with the resulting > packages as opposed to trying to run it globally whether it is under > /usr/ports > or even /usr/ports/x11/kde for that matter. It isn't "smart enough" to figure > out what packages are installed and only build the resulting package. It will > just build the packages and then attempt to update the package if it exists on > the system. Actually, make update is very useful for me... It's mostly a target used to do a complete bulk build on a machine without uninstalling the previous set of packages first. As we've said for years now, users should use binary packages most of the time. The ports tree is heavily slanted towards actual developers and bulk builders. > Last of all, your expectation. You have an expectation that make update works > in a certain manner and as outlined above this is not the way that the tools > actully work at the moment. So get used to it. ;) This is totally unlikely to change... the update he wants is probably pkg_add -ui with SRC path...
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:31:32PM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: > On my 4.4 i386 make update on ports kde fetches the distfiles/sources > and build the packages even when not installed at all nor requested. Yes, that's a feature... make update has to build the packages to know whether or not it needs to update them. You can reverse the process by running pkg_add -ui with a SRC url in the PKG_PATH. This is usually rather painful, if you can live with compiled snapshot packages, that's simpler. Except for the few people who actually develop new ports and perform quality insurance on the existing builds, it's much simpler to just use the binary packages for most things, and only build from source when you really have a good reason to do so.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
Hi Owain Ainsworth, Owain Ainsworth wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 03:40:54PM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: Yes I have to do it, buy I'm a non-conformist, I've found that 90% of the time when someone says that they actually mean: ``I'm too stupid to know I'm doing it wrong''. Yes, may be you are right and ``I'm too stupid to know I'm doing it wrong''. Anyway, I prefer doing things wrong than doing nothing, I'm not afraid of insults or the like when I am doing what I think is honest and it's my job. Please, if you don't understand how the ports framework works, don't use it! Wait for snapshot packages and do pkg_add -ui. If you can't give a well reasoned and coherent explanation of why you should be using ports, you shouldn't. Well, I really don't fully understand (yet) how the ports framework works, I am spending lots of hours of my life studying at this and here I am also asking human forums. I must say in my point of view (read my modes opinion) that the ports framework as it is is lacking many usability and features, and that it's in need of more improvement. But as I told before, I am not happy with the current snapshots for many applications (tor, full KDE + its artwork, etc) (currently (out)dated 14-Aug-2008 at jp mirror) and I want to test the latest ports just to see if some of my issues has already been tweaked by the ports developers, and to develop my job on an top updated -current box. If someone already has resolved some of my issues in latest cvs ports tree, why I would reinvent the wheel? And next week I plan to install and test kde4 (available is (outdated) v4.0.1) from ports, that is still an ongoing OpenBSD developers unfinished job (KDE4 is already v4.1.0 on some top linux distros, fully running), and (my proudly) OpenBSD-KDE box cannot be behind. May I should point you for your record that I am creating an OpenBSD-KDE Desktop distro. There are ports that I am creating myself (for my own use, as I am only on i386 and I don't know if they are well done), as for tor, kde-windeco-crystal, kde-icons-tehmes, privoxy, gnupg, etc. , many times just to be on latest patched source relating highly critical security issues that OpenBSD takes weeks or months to implement, unacceptable at all for my security focused system project. I have to learn the way to be really updated (not 6 months later). This is why many times I want ports, most times it's just a matter or weeks to be ahead. I am not a standard OpenBSD consumer, that will await sit-down for packages or snapshots when they are not complying my needs. And about usability, for my OpenBSD-KDE proejct, I want at least the same package management as can offer synaptic in Linux (I have to study pbrowser and sqlports), with some quick buttons upgrades/updates systems, including from my own modest repository for my custom ports-based or compiles from sources tweaked updated packages. I am talking here a bot too much, this comments will be subject of an entirely new set of threads, including a wikisite I will host in a near time for the matter ... Mac
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
Hi Marco Peereboom, Marco Peereboom wrote: Yes I have to do it, buy I'm a non-conformist, and I want this OS to improve to its best, so me, a mere mortal, if I'm paining with those usability issues, perhaps the OpenBSD gurus will try to improve usability in months or years to come ... You are doing it wrong. Every 6 months you update the OS followed by pkg_add -ui. That is how you keep OpenBSD up to snuff. Everything else means you know what you are doing and are therefore not entitled to whining. Yes you may be right. But, I am building an OpenBSD-KDE PC Desktop distro (focused on usability for the masses including top privacy/security implementations) and on my experimental -current box I want to be forward to stable-s to test and tweak everything asap. And the current 4.3 OpenBSD isn't ready at all for this, I have to tweak (read pre-configure the sustem for my focused users, create automated scripts, create artwork, etc.) many, many things, thousands hours job, most of them are currently feasible but must be properly configurated. Mac.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 03:40:54PM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: > Yes I have to do it, buy I'm a non-conformist, I've found that 90% of the time when someone says that they actually mean: ``I'm too stupid to know I'm doing it wrong''. Please, if you don't understand how the ports framework works, don't use it! Wait for snapshot packages and do pkg_add -ui. If you can't give a well reasoned and coherent explanation of why you should be using ports, you shouldn't. -0- -- It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck? One in a million, perhaps.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
> Yes I have to do it, buy I'm a non-conformist, and I want this OS to > improve to its best, so me, a mere mortal, if I'm paining with those > usability issues, perhaps the OpenBSD gurus will try to improve > usability in months or years to come ... You are doing it wrong. Every 6 months you update the OS followed by pkg_add -ui. That is how you keep OpenBSD up to snuff. Everything else means you know what you are doing and are therefore not entitled to whining.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
Hi Brad. Brad wrote: On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:31:32 -0600 macintoshzoom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On my 4.4 i386 make update on ports kde fetches the distfiles/sources and build the packages even when not installed at all nor requested. As some one of you know, the full sources of kde on a slow connection can be desperately lng. I asked: # env FORCE_UPDATE=yes env FORCE_ALWAYSUPDATE=yes \ env FORCE_UPDATEDEPENDS=yes make update perhaps this is my error? It is a combination of three issues.. the way make update works, the way the ports tree works and your expectation. First off, make update really does not work the way most users would probably think it should work under the most ideal conditions. It is more or less meant to be run in each directory to update individual ports with the resulting packages as opposed to trying to run it globally whether it is under /usr/ports or even /usr/ports/x11/kde for that matter. It isn't "smart enough" to figure out what packages are installed and only build the resulting package. It will just build the packages and then attempt to update the package if it exists on the system. OK, now I understand some of the make update limitations. Running make update on each of the dozens, say one hundred, folders is a bit discouraging about what I like to expect from an avantgarde OS as I want OpenBSD to be. I want a one-button update/upgrade, as modern popular OSes, automated, so to keep the system always to the top without investing any time on it, I have many better things to waste my time on, time, a thing that life doesn't give to me for free. The second issue is the way the ports tree works. Some ports have sub-packages or FLAVORs. In the case of kde-i18n it has FLAVORs for each language. If you look at ports/x11/kde/Makefile you will see that during bulk builds all of the languages have packages built. So going back to what I said above if you run make update under kde/ it will just build all of the packages and then update whatever is actually installed. Yes, this is what it's doing from many hours ago, and I am a bit desperate and feeling myself as stupid trying to run this machine as I want to. But I will leave "make update" to do the job the best "she" knows. Last of all, your expectation. You have an expectation that make update works in a certain manner and as outlined above this is not the way that the tools actully work at the moment. So get used to it. ;) Yes I have to do it, buy I'm a non-conformist, and I want this OS to improve to its best, so me, a mere mortal, if I'm paining with those usability issues, perhaps the OpenBSD gurus will try to improve usability in months or years to come ... Mac. .. >> kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tar.bz2 doesn't seem to exist on this system. >> Fetch ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/3.5.9/src/kde-i18n/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tar.bz2. 48% |* .. .. ===> Building package for kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9 Create /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz Link to /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz Link to /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz ===> Updating for kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9 Not installed, no update kde-i18n-kk is the korean language for Kde, which I never installed nor requested. I am doing something wrong, or it's a bug? Besides this, as I mentioned also in my previous thread, instead of linking the newly created packages from /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/ to /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp/ and to /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom/ , as the stdout says above, it creates copies of the file in each folder. I am doing again something wrong, or it's a bug? Thanks folks. Mac.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
Hi Otto Moerbeek, Now I'm starting to understand about hard links. Thank to all you folks. I am (very) strong on some matters, but a complete ignorant in most Unix questions, but learning fast anyway. Mac. Otto Moerbeek wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 03:03:13PM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: It seems that it's Ok, I confused (konqueror lied me) soft and hard linked files, (which I ignored the existence till today, nor I understand yet why those hard links are useful). Any file is linked to a directory entry by a hard link. A file can have more than one hard link from several directory entries. If a file has zero hard links and no program has it open, it will be deleted. # cd /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom # ls -i kde-i18n-nl-3.5.9.tgz 890218 kde-i18n-nl-3.5.9.tgz # cd /usr/ports/packages/i386/all # ls -i kde-i18n-nl-3.5.9.tgz 890218 kde-i18n-nl-3.5.9.tgz # So both have the same inode # 890218 (it's like that?), so I am understanding that they are the same file, not twice space used on my hard drive. I am right? yes. The whole point is that you can have a single file appearing in multiple places in the directory hierarchy, without wasting space. -Otto
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
Hi Paul de Weerd, .. OK! Mac. Paul de Weerd wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:47:41PM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: I am on : OpenBSD 4.4-current (GENERIC.MP) my.domain:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP Does this ports@openbsd.org forum excludes talking about -current? Definitely not (quite the opposite), but you should specify that you're on -current. Your mail said '4.4', which is not released yet (and, as was pointed out to me offlist, not directly related to your issue), but it made me suspicious and it does confuse things : did he mean 4.3 ? -current ? If so, which one is the developers forum for talking, improving and testing new ports and OpenBSD features? Testing and improving ports and OpenBSD features is a good thing, keep it up, but be sure to give enough details (a bit more is better than not enough) when asking for help. Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 03:03:13PM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: > It seems that it's Ok, I confused (konqueror lied me) soft and hard > linked files, (which I ignored the existence till today, nor I > understand yet why those hard links are useful). Any file is linked to a directory entry by a hard link. A file can have more than one hard link from several directory entries. If a file has zero hard links and no program has it open, it will be deleted. > > # cd /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom > # ls -i kde-i18n-nl-3.5.9.tgz > 890218 kde-i18n-nl-3.5.9.tgz > # cd /usr/ports/packages/i386/all > # ls -i kde-i18n-nl-3.5.9.tgz > 890218 kde-i18n-nl-3.5.9.tgz > # > > So both have the same inode # 890218 (it's like that?), so I am > understanding that they are the same file, not twice space used on my > hard drive. > > I am right? yes. The whole point is that you can have a single file appearing in multiple places in the directory hierarchy, without wasting space. -Otto
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
It seems that it's Ok, I confused (konqueror lied me) soft and hard linked files, (which I ignored the existence till today, nor I understand yet why those hard links are useful). # cd /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom # ls -i kde-i18n-nl-3.5.9.tgz 890218 kde-i18n-nl-3.5.9.tgz # cd /usr/ports/packages/i386/all # ls -i kde-i18n-nl-3.5.9.tgz 890218 kde-i18n-nl-3.5.9.tgz # So both have the same inode # 890218 (it's like that?), so I am understanding that they are the same file, not twice space used on my hard drive. I am right? Mac. Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2008/08/28 13:31, macintoshzoom wrote: Create /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz Link to /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz Link to /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz Besides this, as I mentioned also in my previous thread, instead of linking the newly created packages from /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/ to /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp/ and to /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom/ , as the stdout says above, it creates copies of the file in each folder. either something is seriously broken on your system, or you should read ln(1) about different types of links.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:47:41PM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: > I am on : > OpenBSD 4.4-current (GENERIC.MP) > my.domain:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP > > Does this ports@openbsd.org forum excludes talking about -current? Definitely not (quite the opposite), but you should specify that you're on -current. Your mail said '4.4', which is not released yet (and, as was pointed out to me offlist, not directly related to your issue), but it made me suspicious and it does confuse things : did he mean 4.3 ? -current ? > If so, which one is the developers forum for talking, improving and testing > new ports and OpenBSD features? Testing and improving ports and OpenBSD features is a good thing, keep it up, but be sure to give enough details (a bit more is better than not enough) when asking for help. Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
Hi Paul de Weerd, Paul de Weerd wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:31:32PM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: On my 4.4 i386 make update on ports kde fetches the distfiles/sources and build the packages even when not installed at all nor requested. Are you asking for help on something that's not released yet ? There is no 4.4 yet, the pre-orders aren't even up yet. Are you having issues with a -current snapshot or 4.3 ? If so, your details are off. Did you build your own release ? If so, you're on your own. I am on : OpenBSD 4.4-current (GENERIC.MP) my.domain:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP Does this ports@openbsd.org forum excludes talking about -current? If so, which one is the developers forum for talking, improving and testing new ports and OpenBSD features? Mac Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
So it creates "hard links" that "A hard link to a file is indistinguishable from the original directory entry". OKKK. Thanks. I imagine that when I do $ df -h it gives me the space used by the real files, not their ghost "hard link" copies. So I ran out of space for another reasons. I have placed in extremis most distfiles and the whole cvs xenocara (not yet built) folder to /var, to leave temporary space and to try to end my kde update. Everyday learning lot of things. It seems to me that konqueror file browser nor tools as kdirstats are able to detect the difference and considers them as two different files. That's not good. Asking konqueror for properties of each file, it gives you size and etc, not a word about "hard link", I will check with the kde developers. Thanks Antoine Jacoutot. Mac. Antoine Jacoutot wrote: On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, macintoshzoom wrote: Besides this, as I mentioned also in my previous thread, instead of linking the newly created packages from /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/ to /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp/ and to /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom/ , as the stdout says above, it creates copies of the file in each folder. No it does not, it creates hard links. Please read the documentation. i.e. ln(1)
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:31:32 -0600 macintoshzoom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On my 4.4 i386 make update on ports kde fetches the distfiles/sources > and build the packages even when not installed at all nor requested. > > As some one of you know, the full sources of kde on a slow connection > can be desperately lng. > > I asked: > # env FORCE_UPDATE=yes env FORCE_ALWAYSUPDATE=yes \ > env FORCE_UPDATEDEPENDS=yes make update > > perhaps this is my error? It is a combination of three issues.. the way make update works, the way the ports tree works and your expectation. First off, make update really does not work the way most users would probably think it should work under the most ideal conditions. It is more or less meant to be run in each directory to update individual ports with the resulting packages as opposed to trying to run it globally whether it is under /usr/ports or even /usr/ports/x11/kde for that matter. It isn't "smart enough" to figure out what packages are installed and only build the resulting package. It will just build the packages and then attempt to update the package if it exists on the system. The second issue is the way the ports tree works. Some ports have sub-packages or FLAVORs. In the case of kde-i18n it has FLAVORs for each language. If you look at ports/x11/kde/Makefile you will see that during bulk builds all of the languages have packages built. So going back to what I said above if you run make update under kde/ it will just build all of the packages and then update whatever is actually installed. Last of all, your expectation. You have an expectation that make update works in a certain manner and as outlined above this is not the way that the tools actully work at the moment. So get used to it. ;) > .. > > >> kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tar.bz2 doesn't seem to exist on this system. > >> Fetch > ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/3.5.9/src/kde-i18n/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tar.bz2. > 48% |* > .. > .. > ===> Building package for kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9 > Create /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz > Link to /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz > Link to /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz > ===> Updating for kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9 > Not installed, no update > > kde-i18n-kk is the korean language for Kde, which I never installed nor > requested. > > I am doing something wrong, or it's a bug? > > Besides this, as I mentioned also in my previous thread, instead of > linking the newly created packages from /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/ to > /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp/ and to /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom/ , > as the stdout says above, it creates copies of the file in each folder. > > I am doing again something wrong, or it's a bug? > > Thanks folks. > > Mac. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On 2008/08/28 13:31, macintoshzoom wrote: > Create /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz > Link to /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz > Link to /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz > Besides this, as I mentioned also in my previous thread, instead of > linking the newly created packages from /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/ > to /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp/ and to /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom/ > , as the stdout says above, it creates copies of the file in each > folder. either something is seriously broken on your system, or you should read ln(1) about different types of links.
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:31:32PM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: > On my 4.4 i386 make update on ports kde fetches the distfiles/sources and > build the packages even when not installed at all nor requested. Are you asking for help on something that's not released yet ? There is no 4.4 yet, the pre-orders aren't even up yet. Are you having issues with a -current snapshot or 4.3 ? If so, your details are off. Did you build your own release ? If so, you're on your own. Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, macintoshzoom wrote: > Besides this, as I mentioned also in my previous thread, instead of linking > the newly created packages from /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/ to > /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp/ and to /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom/ , as the > stdout says above, it creates copies of the file in each folder. No it does not, it creates hard links. Please read the documentation. i.e. ln(1) -- Antoine
make update fetchs sources don't needed.
On my 4.4 i386 make update on ports kde fetches the distfiles/sources and build the packages even when not installed at all nor requested. As some one of you know, the full sources of kde on a slow connection can be desperately lng. I asked: # env FORCE_UPDATE=yes env FORCE_ALWAYSUPDATE=yes \ env FORCE_UPDATEDEPENDS=yes make update perhaps this is my error? .. >> kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tar.bz2 doesn't seem to exist on this system. >> Fetch ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/3.5.9/src/kde-i18n/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tar.bz2. 48% |* .. .. ===> Building package for kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9 Create /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz Link to /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz Link to /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom/kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9.tgz ===> Updating for kde-i18n-kk-3.5.9 Not installed, no update kde-i18n-kk is the korean language for Kde, which I never installed nor requested. I am doing something wrong, or it's a bug? Besides this, as I mentioned also in my previous thread, instead of linking the newly created packages from /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/ to /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp/ and to /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom/ , as the stdout says above, it creates copies of the file in each folder. I am doing again something wrong, or it's a bug? Thanks folks. Mac.
