On 4/25/06, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 02:39:58AM +0300, Panagiotis Christias wrote: > > On 4/25/06, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:41:51PM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > > > > > > > >A new version of a port (www/firefox) was released on April 14. > > > > > > > > > ># portversion -v firefox > > > > >firefox-1.5.0.1,1 < needs updating (port has 1.5.0.2,1) > > > > > > > > > >But packages still (on April 24) are of previous version: > > > > > > > > > >$ ftp ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/ > > > > >ftp> dir packages-5-stable/All/firefox-1* > > > > >-rw-r--r-- 1 110 0 11188636 Apr 01 16:29 > > > > >firefox-1.5.0.1_2,1.tbz > > > > >ftp> dir packages-6-stable/All/firefox-1* > > > > >-rw-r--r-- 1 110 0 11511879 Apr 02 10:21 > > > > >firefox-1.5.0.1_2,1.tbz > > > > >ftp> dir packages-7-current/All/firefox-1* > > > > >-rw-r--r-- 1 110 0 11511428 Apr 03 04:40 > > > > >firefox-1.5.0.1_2,1.tbz > > > > > > > > > >Is something broken or is there insufficient computing power for > > > > >building new packages more often? > > > > > > > > It's my understanding that packages are built "when possible". They > > > > often lag that which is in ports. There are only so many cycles in a > > > > day (per cpu and per person). I would assume that there is some logical > > > > order in which the packages are built (most used first? Though not sure > > > > how that would be determined) > > > > > > I continuously rebuild packages using a method that only builds > > > "changed" packages (new, updated to new version or with a dependency > > > that was changed). This typically gives a turnaround time on i386 of > > > less than a day to several days for packages becoming available, but > > > as I said in another reply I'm not uploading them now because of the > > > looming release cycle. > > > > With no intention to criticize your way of thinking or your work, > > release cycles sometimes could take a bit more time than scheduled. > > You, the developers and maintainers, know that better than us, the > > users. In the mean time there is a whole community of (end?) users > > that could benefit from the prompt availability of latest ports in > > packages. I'm referring mostly to desktop or workstation users, since > > the most of us build our ports from the sources for our servers. > > Although, I'm eager to use the "portupgrade -P" option more often for > > our (less critical) ports. > > > > Is there a chance that you, along with the release engineering team, > > reconsider your policy? > > It's basically forced upon us by the finite bandwidth of mirror sites. > At release time they have many gigabytes of ISO images and other > install media, etc to download, without adding many gigabytes of > packages. If we don't back off from uploading packages in the lead up > to the release, then what happens is that many mirror sites are out of > date and do not carry the release media at the time of release.
Well, speaking as the maintainer of the ftp.gr.freebsd.org mirror site I would say that in this case the monolithic form of the FreeBSD FTP repository is a drawback. Mirroring around 350GB/1.600.000 files, or even a subset, is a difficult (see insufficient) task. Separating the repository and the mirroring process in parts (releases, packages etc.) could be a solution.. Regards, Panagiotis _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
