Re: bug 273961, and use of Bugzilla (was FreeBSD ports community is broken)

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 19:29:57 + Graham Perrin wrote: > > The problem is that no one did anything, and only criticized any > > attempts to rectify the situation. > > > I was a member of the triage team when I wrote > . My > then

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

[I should have noted howthe processor frequency is heandled.] > On Mar 11, 2024, at 08:50, Mark Millard wrote: > > [The armv7 poudriere bulk finished.] > > On Mar 10, 2024, at 13:10, Mark Millard wrote: > >> [poudriere bulk status update.] >> >> On Mar 5, 2024, at 18:43, Mark Millard wrote:

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

[The armv7 poudriere bulk finished.] On Mar 10, 2024, at 13:10, Mark Millard wrote: > [poudriere bulk status update.] > > On Mar 5, 2024, at 18:43, Mark Millard wrote: > >> [I noticed that my SWAP figures were not self consistent for the armv7.] >> >> On Feb 18, 2024, at 09:50, Mark Millard

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

On Mar 10, 2024, at 13:34, Nuno Teixeira wrote: >> Hello Mark, Hello. >>> Context: 1GHz, 4 core, cortex-a7 (armv7), 2 GiBytes RAM, USB2. >>> RAM+SWAP: 5.6 GiBytes. Also, this is doing my normal armv7 (and >>> aarch64) style of devel/llvm* build: OPTION'd to BE_NATIVE >>> instead of BE_STANDARD

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

Hello Mark, > Context: 1GHz, 4 core, cortex-a7 (armv7), 2 GiBytes RAM, USB2. > RAM+SWAP: 5.6 GiBytes. Also, this is doing my normal armv7 (and > aarch64) style of devel/llvm* build: OPTION'd to BE_NATIVE > instead of BE_STANDARD and OPTION'd to not build MLIR. llvm BE_NATIVE/without MLIR seems th

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

[poudriere bulk status update.] On Mar 5, 2024, at 18:43, Mark Millard wrote: > [I noticed that my SWAP figures were not self consistent for the armv7.] > > On Feb 18, 2024, at 09:50, Mark Millard wrote: > >> [I also forgot to mention an important FreeBSD configuration setting >> as well. It

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

[I noticed that my SWAP figures were not self consistent for the armv7.] On Feb 18, 2024, at 09:50, Mark Millard wrote: > [I also forgot to mention an important FreeBSD configuration setting > as well. It is not specific to poudriere use.] > >> On Feb 18, 2024, at 09:13, Mark Millard wrote: >>

bug 273961, and use of Bugzilla (was FreeBSD ports community is broken)

On 19/02/2024 07:42, Rozhuk Ivan wrote: … The problem is that no one did anything, and only criticized any attempts to rectify the situation. I was a member of the triage team when I wrote . My then perception of things was quit

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

Hi Mark, Mark Millard wrote: > On Feb 20, 2024, at 05:13, Jamie Landeg-Jones wrote: > > > I've probably grasped the wrong ideas from this thread. I thought it was > > about the implied effective deprecation of the ports infrastructure for > > a binary package only structure, with poudriere bein

ports-mgmt/poudriere 3.4.⋯ (was: FreeBSD ports community is broken)

On 18/02/2024 16:22, Guido Falsi wrote: … Poudriere "recently" gained ability to use binary packages for dependencies, with safeguards for different options and other things ( -b option, in poudriere-bulk(8)). … Updated: Getting started with poudriere …

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

On Feb 20, 2024, at 05:13, Jamie Landeg-Jones wrote: > Mark Millard wrote: > >> It probably should be separate from this topic, but I'd interested >> to understand some example types of changes folks make for which >> poudriere prevents the changes from working but for which portmaster >> use o

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

"Edward Sanford Sutton, III" wrote: > > What's the reasoning behind people claiming a shift from "make install" > > to poudriere is necessary? > >I don't consider it necessary, but building in a clean environment is > desirable to minimize issues and maximize uptime. Some ports will fail >

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

On 2/20/24 06:13, Jamie Landeg-Jones wrote: Mark Millard wrote: It probably should be separate from this topic, but I'd interested to understand some example types of changes folks make for which poudriere prevents the changes from working but for which portmaster use or make use allows the ch

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

Mark Millard wrote: > It probably should be separate from this topic, but I'd interested > to understand some example types of changes folks make for which > poudriere prevents the changes from working but for which portmaster > use or make use allows the change to work. I've many changes, nothi

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

Dewayne Geraghty wrote: > flourished my use of "the system". Over time I realised that the ports > maintainer's option choices didn't reflect my needs. Now I have 490 > changes to the ports options and modified 233 ports' Makefiles and files/. > This customisation is based, in priority order: s

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

On Feb 19, 2024, at 16:37, Dewayne Geraghty wrote: > It seems that the ports developers have a tool that they would like everyone > to use, while members of the wider community want choice. I'm not a port developer but I use poudriere to build ports (into packages that I install). I used to use

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

It seems that the ports developers have a tool that they would like everyone to use, while members of the wider community want choice. Context For my part I appreciated Hubbard's pkg_* tools. Later pkg* and the ports infrastructure underwent substantial change. After a few years pkg and the port

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

On Feb 19, 2024, at 00:43, Rozhuk Ivan wrote: > On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 08:52:55 -0800 > Mark Millard wrote: > >>> It should not require >>> prodiere running on a supermassive machine to work (in many cases >>> portmaster and make install recursion fail where prodiere works). >> >> As for con

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 08:52:55 -0800 Mark Millard wrote: > > It should not require > > prodiere running on a supermassive machine to work (in many cases > > portmaster and make install recursion fail where prodiere works). > > As for configuring for small, slow systems relative to > resource use

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 12:31:32 +0100 Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > Wonderful: Are we now moving to the binary pkg only for mere mortals > > then. > > Unfortunatly, yes. Loss of this functionality = loss of one of the main competitive advantages over many Linux distributions. It will be easier to go t

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:11:31 +0300 Gleb Popov wrote: > > The framework has been broken for a long time. It should not require > > prodiere running on a supermassive machine to work (in many cases > > portmaster and make install recursion fail where prodiere works). > > It does not. The thing i

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:16:33 +0100 Felix Palmen wrote: > * Tomoaki AOKI [20240218 17:49]: > > [a lot about automotive regulations] > > That's a nice example how comparisons of entirely different domains > almost always go completely wrong. > > To start with, cars (and especially individual p

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:52:00 +0100 Felix Palmen wrote: > * Rozhuk Ivan [20240218 01:58]: > > 1. devel/pkgconf: unconditionally prioritises base system libraries > > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=273961 > > Actors: vish...@freebsd.org and > > zir...@freebsd.org > > Actual

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

Am 18.02.2024 um 18:52 schrieb Mark Millard: NO_ZFS=yes USE_TMPFS=no PARALLEL_JOBS=2 ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS=yes MAX_EXECUTION_TIME=432000 NOHANG_TIME=432000 MAX_EXECUTION_TIME_EXTRACT=14400 MAX_EXECUTION_TIME_INSTALL=14400 MAX_EXECUTION_TIME_PACKAGE=57600 MAX_EXECUTION_TIME_DEINSTALL=14400 maybe you al

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 10:21 PM Mark Millard wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2024, at 17:23, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 3:21 PM Mark Millard wrote: > >> > >> I fully agree that poudriere's systematic behavior > >> rebuilds more than the likes of portmaster [but fails > >> less of

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

Hello. Aryeh Friedman wrote on 2024/02/19 10:23: > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 3:21 PM Mark Millard wrote: >> >> I fully agree that poudriere's systematic behavior >> rebuilds more than the likes of portmaster [but fails >> less often]. >> > The reason why no alternative has been produced yet is make

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

On Feb 18, 2024, at 17:23, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 3:21 PM Mark Millard wrote: >> >> I fully agree that poudriere's systematic behavior >> rebuilds more than the likes of portmaster [but fails >> less often]. >> >> >> As stands there are tradeoffs between use of portma

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 3:21 PM Mark Millard wrote: > > I fully agree that poudriere's systematic behavior > rebuilds more than the likes of portmaster [but fails > less often]. > > > As stands there are tradeoffs between use of portmaster > (and the like) vs. use of poudriere (/synth?). No one >

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

On Feb 18, 2024, at 11:34, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: > On 18/02/2024 17:52, Mark Millard wrote: >> Aryeh Friedman wrote on >> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 10:37:06 UTC : >>> It should not require >>> prodiere running on a supermassive machine to work (in many cases >>> portmaster an

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

On 18/02/2024 17:52, Mark Millard wrote: Aryeh Friedman wrote on Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 10:37:06 UTC : It should not require prodiere running on a supermassive machine to work (in many cases portmaster and make install recursion fail where prodiere works). As for configuring for small, slow

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

[I also forgot to mention an important FreeBSD configuration setting as well. It is not specific to poudriere use.] > On Feb 18, 2024, at 09:13, Mark Millard wrote: > > [I forgot to mention the armv7 core count involved: 4] > > On Feb 18, 2024, at 08:52, Mark Millard wrote: > >> Aryeh Friedma

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

[I forgot to mention the armv7 core count involved: 4] On Feb 18, 2024, at 08:52, Mark Millard wrote: > Aryeh Friedman wrote on > Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 10:37:06 UTC : > >> It should not require >> prodiere running on a supermassive machine to work (in many cases >> portmaster and make install

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes]

Aryeh Friedman wrote on Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 10:37:06 UTC : > It should not require > prodiere running on a supermassive machine to work (in many cases > portmaster and make install recursion fail where prodiere works). As for configuring for small, slow systems relative to resource use, I pro

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On 18/02/24 12:41, Vasily Postnicov wrote: My 50 cents about poudriere: it's definitely not a machine-killer. Just remember to disable tmpfs for too heavy ports (my list includes rust, 0ad, webengine), start with only two jobs (one job is bad because the build can be blocked by fetching or pack

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 06:47:25 -0500 Aryeh Friedman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 6:45 AM Gleb Popov wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 2:35 PM Aryeh Friedman > > wrote: > > > No it is not possible since the pkg's are usually of a different > > > version then what is built from ports (por

Re: Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

* Aryeh Friedman [20240218 05:37]: > I guess you have never heard of software engineering? > > Also the OP is 100% right there is a lot of "brokenish" in the ports > community for example no maintainer should ever be banned from -ports@ > but I have been for reasons never explained to me and thus

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 6:51 AM Thierry Thomas wrote: > > Le dim. 18 févr. 24 à 12:30:55 +0100, Aryeh Friedman > écrivait : > > > > It is still possible for maintainer to submit PR with patches not tested > > > on poudriere: it is the committer’s responsibility to perform these > > > tests befor

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

Le dim. 18 févr. 24 à 12:30:55 +0100, Aryeh Friedman écrivait : > > It is still possible for maintainer to submit PR with patches not tested > > on poudriere: it is the committer’s responsibility to perform these > > tests before committing them. > > Again when will mere mortals get to do anyth

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

I may be wrong, but in my opinion, FreeBSD is definitely not for beginners :) Reading some documentation is usually required before one can use it. вс, 18 февр. 2024 г., 14:45 Aryeh Friedman : > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 6:41 AM Vasily Postnicov > wrote: > > > > My 50 cents about poudriere: it's d

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 6:45 AM Gleb Popov wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 2:35 PM Aryeh Friedman > wrote: > > No it is not possible since the pkg's are usually of a different > > version then what is built from ports (ports is almost newer) > > There can't be any other way - ports are buildi

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 2:35 PM Aryeh Friedman wrote: > No it is not possible since the pkg's are usually of a different > version then what is built from ports (ports is almost newer) There can't be any other way - ports are building recipes for packages. Packages will always lag behind. > may

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 6:41 AM Vasily Postnicov wrote: > > My 50 cents about poudriere: it's definitely not a machine-killer. Just > remember to disable tmpfs for too heavy ports (my list includes rust, 0ad, > webengine), start with only two jobs (one job is bad because the build can be > bloc

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

My 50 cents about poudriere: it's definitely not a machine-killer. Just remember to disable tmpfs for too heavy ports (my list includes rust, 0ad, webengine), start with only two jobs (one job is bad because the build can be blocked by fetching or packaging) and set ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS=yes. This confi

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 6:32 AM Gleb Popov wrote: > And it is not a Poudriere deficiency. Just as you can ask portmaster > to download some binary packages instead of building them, the same > way you can configure Poudriere. To be honest, I don't quite get > what's the problem you're talking abo

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

Hi! > Wonderful: Are we now moving to the binary pkg only for mere mortals > then. Unfortunatly, yes. > So when is it going to be possible for a mere mortal like the machine > above to use portmaster or recursive make install since Poudrie is a > machine killer Both options are probably no long

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 6:28 AM Thierry Thomas wrote: > > Le dim. 18 févr. 24 à 12:18:11 +0100, Aryeh Friedman > écrivait : > > > Wonderful: Are we now moving to the binary pkg only for mere mortals > > then. For example my desktop is a fairly standard 12 core machine > > with 24 GB of RAM and

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

Le dim. 18 févr. 24 à 12:18:11 +0100, Aryeh Friedman écrivait : > Wonderful: Are we now moving to the binary pkg only for mere mortals > then. For example my desktop is a fairly standard 12 core machine > with 24 GB of RAM and plenty of disk space (on SSD's) but yet Proudrie > slows the machine

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 6:11 AM Gleb Popov wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 1:37 PM Aryeh Friedman > wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 5:16 AM Felix Palmen wrote: > > > > > > * Tomoaki AOKI [20240218 17:49]: > > > > [a lot about automotive regulations] > > > > > > That's a nice example

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 1:37 PM Aryeh Friedman wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 5:16 AM Felix Palmen wrote: > > > > * Tomoaki AOKI [20240218 17:49]: > > > [a lot about automotive regulations] > > > > That's a nice example how comparisons of entirely different domains > > almost always go compl

Fwd: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

community is broken To: On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 5:16 AM Felix Palmen wrote: > > * Tomoaki AOKI [20240218 17:49]: > > [a lot about automotive regulations] > > That's a nice example how comparisons of entirely different domains > almost always go completely wrong. I gue

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 5:16 AM Felix Palmen wrote: > > * Tomoaki AOKI [20240218 17:49]: > > [a lot about automotive regulations] > > That's a nice example how comparisons of entirely different domains > almost always go completely wrong. I guess you have never heard of software engineering? Al

Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

* Tomoaki AOKI [20240218 17:49]: > [a lot about automotive regulations] That's a nice example how comparisons of entirely different domains almost always go completely wrong. To start with, cars (and especially individual parts) typically aren't subject to consumer customizations, and if they ar

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:52:00 +0100 Felix Palmen wrote: > * Rozhuk Ivan [20240218 01:58]: > > 1. devel/pkgconf: unconditionally prioritises base system libraries > > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=273961 > > Actors: vish...@freebsd.org and > > zir...@freebsd.org > > Actuall

Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

* Rozhuk Ivan [20240218 01:58]: > 1. devel/pkgconf: unconditionally prioritises base system libraries > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=273961 > Actors: vish...@freebsd.org and zir...@freebsd.org Actually, the discussion in this PR (which was ridiculously long because of one s

FreeBSD ports community is broken

Hi! I believe that the community engaged in port support has serious problems. I’m not talking about systematic ignoring reports and patches, on the contrary, this is a pronounced position of individual (I come out) maintainers. Instead of solving the problems of the community, they are concerned