Kevin Oberman wrote on 02/16/2016 20:44:
[...]
I already see the looming battle over a future
replacement of the init system with something both more functional and
manageable. I think systemd went way too heavily toward "functional" and
ignored the manageable side. I hope FreeBSD does better,
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:57 AM, wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:14:02PM +0100, John Marino wrote:
> > And now the fully circle. This is FreeBSD's Godwin's law. You know the
> > discussion is over when somebody says that "[issue] of the day" is the
> > root cause of BSD being eclipsed by Li
Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2/15/16 3:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> John Marino wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>>>
> This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases.
> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>
Th
Michelle Sullivan wrote:
John Marino wrote:
On 2/15/2016 5:59 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
It was actually worse than that. Those of us who questioned the wisdom
of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented
mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored,
John Marino wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 9:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I'd agree with this... except...
>>
>> pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng... that makes it base os
>> thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports..
>>
>> So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports syst
Hello,
On 2/15/16 3:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
John Marino wrote:
On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases.
And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I k
On 02/15/2016 09:32, Roger Marquis wrote:
>> This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases.
>> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>
> There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know. The issue was
> with ports and by extension pkgng (and relat
On 2/15/2016 9:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Yeah, I'd agree with this... except...
>
> pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng... that makes it base os
> thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports..
>
> So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports system, because whilst
> it maybe
John Marino wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>
>>> This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases.
>>> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>>>
>> There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know. The issue was
>> with por
I've never met bapt, who implemented pkg, or bdrewery, but from
what I can see, implementing pkg was not a short-term project for them.
Short-term perspective != short-term project considering they're both
relative to the ecosystem.
It was the only way out from the technical burden of the old
Ports have to support all supported releases, that's the only connection.
They have historically and for good reason. Cross-platform ports are
FreeBSD's strongest feature, but it would not have taken a tremendous
amount of effort to have supported both pre- and post- ng trees in tandem
for say
Hi!
> > So, if it was too burdensome for the whole project to support
> > two trees (that probably was the estimate for the core developers
> > involved [and I'm not one of them]), why, do you think, would
> > it have worked for a sub-fraction of the project ?
>
> Thanks Kurt, for cutting to the
Am Montag, 15. Februar 2016 schrieb Roger Marquis:
> There are lots of reasons why Linux has effectively eclipsed BSD
> including device drivers, unattended deployments and install menus but
> 8.X's wholesale throwing of so many of us under the bus was by far the
> worst.
Well, have you experience
On 2/15/2016 6:31 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Actually it made perfect sense... (for a change) ... make pkgng the
> default on 10.x and allow people to use either on 8.4 and 9.x ... this
> made perfect sense... Make base packaging using similar/same tools as
> part of 11+ makes perfect sense..
So, if it was too burdensome for the whole project to support
two trees (that probably was the estimate for the core developers
involved [and I'm not one of them]), why, do you think, would
it have worked for a sub-fraction of the project ?
Thanks Kurt, for cutting to the core issue. It's one t
On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>> This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases.
>> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>
> There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know. The issue was
> with ports and by extension pkgng (and related
This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases.
And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know. The issue was
with ports and by extension pkgng (and related -ngs).
You know good and well that people kick the
John Marino wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 5:59 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>
>> It was actually worse than that. Those of us who questioned the wisdom
>> of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented
>> mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored, B) told that
>>
Hi!
> The FreeBSD Foundation SHOULD have played a part in insuring
> a smoother transition to pkgng (much less portsng and, gack, rcng) but
> this doesn't seem to have been on their radar.
I don't know if it was on their radar, but I saw at that time that
the community lost users due to the techn
On 2/15/2016 5:59 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
> It was actually worse than that. Those of us who questioned the wisdom
> of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented
> mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored, B) told that
> there were not enough (develop
Michelle wrote:
The way it was forced down everyone's necks pushed it to 8.4 and 9.x
systems as well as 10.x, this was a bad decision. It was a decision
made by someone who doesn't live in the real world of production servers
and production services...
It was actually worse than that. Those o
Michelle wrote:
> The way it was forced down everyone's necks pushed it to 8.4 and 9.x
> systems as well as 10.x, this was a bad decision. It was a decision
> made by someone who doesn't live in the real world of production servers
> and production services...
Michelle, I sympathize, but you're
Steven Hartland wrote:
> On 14/02/2016 11:25, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>> My experience is that pkg(8) has been wonderfully robust since 1.3.
>>> before
>>> 1.3 it was a real pain in the neck, though I never had a need to
>>> rebuild
>>> the DB, I did ave to do a bit of fix
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Steven Hartland
wrote:
> On 14/02/2016 11:25, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>
>>> My experience is that pkg(8) has been wonderfully robust since 1.3.
>>> before
>>> 1.3 it was a real pain in the neck, though I never had a need to rebuild
>>>
On 14/02/2016 11:25, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Kevin Oberman wrote:
My experience is that pkg(8) has been wonderfully robust since 1.3. before
1.3 it was a real pain in the neck, though I never had a need to rebuild
the DB, I did ave to do a bit of fix-up. I really, really wish Bapt had
listened
Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> My experience is that pkg(8) has been wonderfully robust since 1.3. before
> 1.3 it was a real pain in the neck, though I never had a need to rebuild
> the DB, I did ave to do a bit of fix-up. I really, really wish Bapt had
> listened and held up the default to pkg for a bi
On 2/14/2016 8:07 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> ery update to the port going back to the version when the options file
> was created, 1.9a_1. Comparing that to the current version, there have
> been no options changes at all. Not to the options offered nor to the
> defaults. I am baffled as to what is
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Michelle Sullivan
wrote:
> Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Michelle wrote:
> >
> >> ports (post pkg) from source: exactly the same problems as pre-pkg plus
> >> occasionally the DB would get corrupted and then you have to nuke the
> >> entire package system fro
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Alphons van Werven
wrote:
> John Marino wrote:
>
> > Well, if I make the assume that Kevin has been using portmaster, and
> > that using Synth revealed 42 obsolete cached configurations, I would
> > have to conclude PM doesn't do this anymore or does it very poorl
Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Michelle wrote:
>
>> ports (post pkg) from source: exactly the same problems as pre-pkg plus
>> occasionally the DB would get corrupted and then you have to nuke the
>> entire package system from orbit and reinstall all the ports.
>>
>
> Interestingly, I had my
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>>> (The Ubuntu /etc/alternatives symlink system and other mechanisms solve
>>> this well)
>
>
> That hasn't been my experience but then I'm not a big fan of symlinks
> which can't be safely modified outside of the (d)pkg system. As a
> genera
(The Ubuntu /etc/alternatives symlink system and other mechanisms solve
this well)
That hasn't been my experience but then I'm not a big fan of symlinks
which can't be safely modified outside of the (d)pkg system. As a
general rule you want to avoid such unnecessary layers of abstraction
where
Hi!
Michelle wrote:
> ports (post pkg) from source: exactly the same problems as pre-pkg plus
> occasionally the DB would get corrupted and then you have to nuke the
> entire package system from orbit and reinstall all the ports.
Interestingly, I had my cases of strange dependencies chains, but
I
William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
>
> There was a thread a month or 2 back that mentioned adopting the pkg
> 'package format' for binary base packages.
Yeah that would be the final nail..
...and then we have an OS that relies on an sqlite db to be patched up
correctly... why not go with BerkeleyDB .
Hello,
On 2/12/16 11:25 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
This is, indeed, a gap in the Debian world. It's one that the ports
system is a great start towards resolving. That's why I think that
ports + pkg could be a superior offering that people
On 2016/02/12 16:03, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
> There was a thread a month or 2 back that mentioned adopting the pkg
> 'package format' for binary base packages. This would at least unify
> base & userland binaries under 1 package management system (& I *love*
> freebsd-update, BTW, *NO* aspe
Royce Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
>
>
>
>> FreeBSD is different in that regard. The ports system is one of the things
>> that makes it great. Being able to choose whether to compile everything,
>> compile some ports and use official packages (or non-of
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
> This is, indeed, a gap in the Debian world. It's one that the ports
> system is a great start towards resolving. That's why I think that
> ports + pkg could be a superior offering that people would flock to,
> and which deserves more focus
On 02/12/16 09:42, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 12/02/2016 14:56, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
This is a good point. I still don't understand why pkg(8) is not in the
base (though I imagine there's a reason and it takes less than a minute
to install). There can't be many users who install a base system and u
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> On 2/11/16 7:22 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
>> Is the abstraction is happening at the equivalent level here? The
>> platforms that I'm thinking of -- that appear to have already solved
>> this entire class of problem long ago -- feature wrappe
On 12/02/2016 14:56, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> This is a good point. I still don't understand why pkg(8) is not in the
> base (though I imagine there's a reason and it takes less than a minute
> to install). There can't be many users who install a base system and use
> it without a single additional pi
Hello,
On 2/11/16 7:22 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:17 AM, John Marino wrote:
On 2/11/2016 9:08 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Marino wrote:
On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA5
On 2/12/2016 1:29 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 12.02.2016 03:41, John Marino wrote:
>
>> THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT SOMETHING THAT BUILDS PORTS NEEDS THAT
>> ITSELF IS BUILT FROM PORTS. You responded to something different.
> If I want
On 2/12/2016 1:26 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 12.02.2016 03:22, Royce Williams wrote:
>
>> As long as the ports system exists (and I think it should!), the
>> management of compilation requirements -- especially for something
>> that mig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 12.02.2016 03:41, John Marino wrote:
> THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT SOMETHING THAT BUILDS PORTS NEEDS THAT
> ITSELF IS BUILT FROM PORTS. You responded to something different.
If I want to use binary packages, I don't need synth, right? If I
wa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 12.02.2016 03:22, Royce Williams wrote:
> As long as the ports system exists (and I think it should!), the
> management of compilation requirements -- especially for something
> that might need to be bootstrapped early, like a software
> manage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 12.02.2016 00:32, Matt Smith wrote:
>>> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing
>>> portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly)
>> Be installed FROM PORTS without all this build-one-more-gcc
>> stuff. Ada? For *port*man
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11.02.2016 22:33, John Marino wrote:
>>> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing
>>> portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly)
>> Be installed FROM PORTS without all this build-one-more-gcc
>> stuff. Ada? For *port*ma
On 12.02.2016 07:21, Royce Williams wrote:
I'm advocating that we stop quasi-providing four different flavors of
apt-get. Until there is a single and official mechanism for both
dependency resolution and configuration option management, the
fragmentation remains.
Why do you think this is the
On 12.02.2016 01:41, John Marino wrote:
On 2/12/2016 1:22 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
Is the abstraction is happening at the equivalent level here? The
platforms that I'm thinking of -- that appear to have already solved
this entire class of problem long ago -- feature wrappers around
apt-get, n
On 02/11/16 14:15, Royce Williams wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Marino wrote:
On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote:
ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing
po
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:41 PM, John Marino wrote:
>
> On 2/12/2016 1:22 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
> > Is the abstraction is happening at the equivalent level here? The
> > platforms that I'm thinking of -- that appear to have already solved
> > this entire class of problem long ago -- feature wr
On 2/12/2016 1:22 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
> Is the abstraction is happening at the equivalent level here? The
> platforms that I'm thinking of -- that appear to have already solved
> this entire class of problem long ago -- feature wrappers around
> apt-get, not wrappers around dpkg.
I'm not a l
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:17 AM, John Marino wrote:
> On 2/11/2016 9:08 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Marino wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07.02.2016 17:28,
On 2/11/2016 10:32 PM, Matt Smith wrote:
> Remember that before portmaster we had cvsup which was written in
> Modula-3 and portupgrade which is written in Ruby. Whilst it is nice
> that portmaster is just a simple shell script with no dependancies
> that's a relatively new thing.
I'm familiar wit
On Feb 11 22:25, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote:
ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing
portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly)
Be installed FROM PORTS without all this build-one-more-gcc stuff.
Ada? For *port*management* tool? Are
On 2/11/2016 9:08 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Marino wrote:
>>
>> On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA512
>>>
>>> On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote:
>>>
ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Marino wrote:
>
> On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote:
> >
> >> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing
> >> portmaster can d
On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote:
>
>> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing
>> portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly)
> Be installed FROM PORTS without all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote:
> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing
> portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly)
Be installed FROM PORTS without all this build-one-more-gcc stuff.
Ada? For *port*management*
John Marino wrote:
> Well, if I make the assume that Kevin has been using portmaster, and
> that using Synth revealed 42 obsolete cached configurations, I would
> have to conclude PM doesn't do this anymore or does it very poorly and
> misses a large number of configs.
Using the latest version of
On 2/10/2016 11:31 PM, Alphons van Werven wrote:
> ???Between all the question marks (sorry, I just can't help myself) I
> can reveal that Portmaster detects at least some of the above kinds of
> changes. Perhaps not all four, but at least some (if not most).
>
> I suspect it's probably not so
Freddie Cash wrote:
>> A) An option is added
>> B) An option is removed
>> C) An option default changed.
>> D) Any other option configuration changed.
>>
>> Synth is the *only* tool that detects this.
> ???portmaster used to do this; was this option removed? It was one of the
> nicer features o
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:46 PM, John Marino wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 10:15 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >
> > The stale configuration file issue has me a bit confused. The man page
> > does not make it clear just what makes a config "stale". All of my ports
> > are up to date as of 11:00 UTC this mor
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:15:58PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:55 AM, John Marino wrote:
>
> > On 2/8/2016 10:30 AM, Mathias Picker wrote:
> > > Am Montag, den 08.02.2016, 08:35 +0100 schrieb John Marino:
> > > While I like the ideas of synth, and hoped I could use it t
On 2/10/2016 10:15 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> The stale configuration file issue has me a bit confused. The man page
> does not make it clear just what makes a config "stale". All of my ports
> are up to date as of 11:00 UTC this morning. As far as I know, all of
> the configs are "current", alt
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:55 AM, John Marino wrote:
> On 2/8/2016 10:30 AM, Mathias Picker wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 08.02.2016, 08:35 +0100 schrieb John Marino:
> > While I like the ideas of synth, and hoped I could use it to just build
> > my 3-8 ports with modified options, on first look I foun
Hi!
> I'm asking myself how to manage the code. Should i create a new GitHub
> repository? Fork the existing from freebsd/portmaster? How to handle the
> LOCAL Master-Site?
Fork it on Github, for now. It can later be merged with freebsd/portmaster.
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372
On 02/10/16 12:21, John Marino wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 9:27 PM, John Marino wrote:
>> On 2/9/2016 9:20 PM, Warren Block wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote:
>>>
On 2/9/2016 7:20 PM, Warren Block wrote:
>> If you have the build log, I'd like to see it. Dewayne G. got an error
>>>
On 10.02.2016 06:47, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2016-Feb-09 21:24:56 +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Torsten wrote:
I did take a look. I could do both: maintaining the port and maintaining
the software. What do you need? ;)
Submit patches to the 12 PRs open for portmaster:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/b
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:28:11PM +0100, John Marino wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 4:15 PM, Lars Engels wrote:
> >
> > root@fbsd01:~ # synth status
> > Querying system about current package installations.
> > Stand by, comparing installed packages against the ports tree.
> > Stand by, building pkg(8) firs
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:16:10AM +0100, John Marino wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 11:09 AM, Lars Engels wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:40:44AM +0100, John Marino wrote:
> >> On 2/10/2016 10:37 AM, Lars Engels wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:28:11PM +0100, John Marino wrote:
> On 2/9/2
On 2/9/2016 9:27 PM, John Marino wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 9:20 PM, Warren Block wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/9/2016 7:20 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> If you have the build log, I'd like to see it. Dewayne G. got an error
> after overriding CPUTYPE (do you do that t
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:40:44AM +0100, John Marino wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 10:37 AM, Lars Engels wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:28:11PM +0100, John Marino wrote:
> >> On 2/9/2016 4:15 PM, Lars Engels wrote:
> >>>
> >>> root@fbsd01:~ # synth status
> >>> Querying system about current package
My rather short experience:
Synth configuration profile: LiveSystem
===
[A] Ports directory/usr/ports
[B] Packages directory /var/synth/live_packages
[C] Distfiles directory/usr/ports/
There are still issues moving to synth on non-Tier1 architectures:
$ sudo pkg install synth-0.99_6
Updating FreeBSD repository catalogue...
FreeBSD repository is up-to-date.
All repositories are up-to-date.
Updating database digests format: 100%
pkg: No packages available to install matching 'synt
On 2/10/2016 11:09 AM, Lars Engels wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:40:44AM +0100, John Marino wrote:
>> On 2/10/2016 10:37 AM, Lars Engels wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:28:11PM +0100, John Marino wrote:
On 2/9/2016 4:15 PM, Lars Engels wrote:
>
> root@fbsd01:~ # synth statu
Hi!
> >> I did take a look. I could do both: maintaining the port and maintaining
> >> the software. What do you need? ;)
> >
> >Submit patches to the 12 PRs open for portmaster:
> >
> >https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=portmaster
>
> That is just being silly.
Sorry if m
On 2/10/2016 10:37 AM, Lars Engels wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:28:11PM +0100, John Marino wrote:
>> On 2/9/2016 4:15 PM, Lars Engels wrote:
>>>
>>> root@fbsd01:~ # synth status
>>> Querying system about current package installations.
>>> Stand by, comparing installed packages against the po
On 2016-Feb-09 21:24:56 +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>Torsten wrote:
>
>> I did take a look. I could do both: maintaining the port and maintaining
>> the software. What do you need? ;)
>
>Submit patches to the 12 PRs open for portmaster:
>
>https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=p
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> I installed the synth package a couple of days ago, mainly to take a
> look. And yes, I agree, if you're happy with the package (I would be),
> the Ada dependencies and long build times aren't an issue. I'm sure the
> learning curve isn't over
On Tuesday, 9 February 2016 at 15:08:22 +0100, John Marino wrote:
>
> Do you think the illustrated README on the github page is helpful?
>
> https://github.com/jrmarino/synth
I looked at that a couple of days ago. It's certainly much better
than anything else I've seen on github, but it's still
On 2/9/2016 9:20 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote:
>
>> On 2/9/2016 7:20 PM, Warren Block wrote:
If you have the build log, I'd like to see it. Dewayne G. got an error
after overriding CPUTYPE (do you do that too?) and I'm thinking it's
sensitive to C
Hi!
Torsten wrote:
> I did take a look. I could do both: maintaining the port and maintaining
> the software. What do you need? ;)
Submit patches to the 12 PRs open for portmaster:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=portmaster
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 310137
On 08.02.2016 02:18, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 12:44:32 +0100, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote:
Hello,
You have a tool presented as "official" that hasn't had it's
original maintainer in 4 years and was only kept on life support up
until 9 months ago.
Agreed, the "of
On 08.02.2016 01:02, Warren Block wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2016, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote:
Hello,
You have a tool presented as "official" that hasn't had it's
original maintainer in 4 years and was only kept on life support up
until 9 months ago.
Agreed, the "official" (the term used is "recomm
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote:
On 2/9/2016 7:20 PM, Warren Block wrote:
If you have the build log, I'd like to see it. Dewayne G. got an error
after overriding CPUTYPE (do you do that too?) and I'm thinking it's
sensitive to CPU and I'd like to know more.
Yes, I use
CPUTYPE?=core-av
On 2/9/2016 7:20 PM, Warren Block wrote:
>> If you have the build log, I'd like to see it. Dewayne G. got an error
>> after overriding CPUTYPE (do you do that too?) and I'm thinking it's
>> sensitive to CPU and I'd like to know more.
>
> Yes, I use
>
> CPUTYPE?=core-avx2
What happens when you t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/ 9/16 01:20 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote:
>
>> On 2/9/2016 5:00 PM, Warren Block wrote:
>>> 2:20, that's two hours and twenty minutes, to build and install
>>> here on an Atom N270 system. 2:06 for gcc6-aux,
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote:
On 2/9/2016 5:00 PM, Warren Block wrote:
2:20, that's two hours and twenty minutes, to build and install here on
an Atom N270 system. 2:06 for gcc6-aux, most of the rest for ncurses.
That does not include distfile download time. Disk space used was 252M,
On 2/9/2016 4:15 PM, Lars Engels wrote:
>
> root@fbsd01:~ # synth status
> Querying system about current package installations.
> Stand by, comparing installed packages against the ports tree.
> Stand by, building pkg(8) first ... Failed!! (Synth must exit)
> Unfortunately, the system upgrade fai
On 2/9/2016 5:00 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> 2:20, that's two hours and twenty minutes, to build and install here on
> an Atom N270 system. 2:06 for gcc6-aux, most of the rest for ncurses.
> That does not include distfile download time. Disk space used was 252M,
> again not counting the distfiles.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
> IMO, this entire thread is masking a deeper symptom: FreeBSD
> ports/packages management is fragmented.
[snip]
> We need to capture users' reasons for preferring specific frameworks,
> and build a roadmap to how they could be unified.
Anti
On 02/09/16 09:56, Royce Williams wrote:
IMO, this entire thread is masking a deeper symptom: FreeBSD
ports/packages management is fragmented.
Each unofficial tool treats some symptoms well, and others poorly.
The fact that I have to use the phrase "ports/packages" is indicative
of a deep schizo
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
The build time of "like 20-30 minutes, at most" is ummm... let' just call it
optimistic. I only needed five new dependencies. Poudriere was unable to take
advantage of more than two parallel builders except for a rather short
overlap where it used three,
IMO, this entire thread is masking a deeper symptom: FreeBSD
ports/packages management is fragmented.
Each unofficial tool treats some symptoms well, and others poorly.
The fact that I have to use the phrase "ports/packages" is indicative
of a deep schizophrenia.
Don't get me wrong -- I love the
On 2/9/16 9:08 AM, John Marino wrote:
On 2/9/2016 2:46 PM, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
After all of this "discussion" I decided to give synth a try. I have no
pony in this race as I use neither portmaster nor portupgrade. Both may
still be in my repo, but they are not installed.
Thanks for trying it
On 2/9/2016 2:46 PM, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> After all of this "discussion" I decided to give synth a try. I have no
> pony in this race as I use neither portmaster nor portupgrade. Both may
> still be in my repo, but they are not installed.
Thanks for trying it!
>
> The build time of "like 20-30
Hello,
On 2/9/16 7:05 AM, John Marino wrote:
On 2/9/2016 12:45 PM, Hrant Dadivanyan wrote:
1) As was just stated earler this morning, having synth installed is 2
packages: Synth itself and ncurses. These "17 dependences" are build
requirements and not installed. So what is "unreasonable" abou
On 2/9/2016 12:45 PM, Hrant Dadivanyan wrote:
>> 1) As was just stated earler this morning, having synth installed is 2
>> packages: Synth itself and ncurses. These "17 dependences" are build
>> requirements and not installed. So what is "unreasonable" about that?
>
> So will require any upgrade
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
