[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:
[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
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
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
[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
[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:
>>
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
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
"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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
[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
[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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
