ports/113132 (make -j patch)
This patch has been sitting in GNATS for a couple of months now: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/113132 I've received a few mails from people reporting success, and none reporting that bad things have happened. Is it possible to get this committed? Cheers Benjamin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: ports/113132 (make -j patch)
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This patch has been sitting in GNATS for a couple of months now: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/113132 > > I've received a few mails from people reporting success, and none > reporting that bad things have happened. Is it possible to get this > committed? It needs to go through an experimental build first. IMHO, this is an ugly hack. Ultimately, we're talking about marking almost 20k ports as parallel-safe. Why not taking the opposite approach? Allow it by default, figure out which ports break and why, fix where possible? -- Florent Thoumie [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Error in fbdesk (FreeBSD6.3)
#portupgrade -fu fbdesk Error: fbdesk-1.4.1_1 depends on shared library: Imlib2.4 - not found _ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=0066 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ports/113132 (make -j patch)
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Florent Thoumie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This patch has been sitting in GNATS for a couple of months now: > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/113132 > > > > I've received a few mails from people reporting success, and none > > reporting that bad things have happened. Is it possible to get this > > committed? > > It needs to go through an experimental build first. > > IMHO, this is an ugly hack. Ultimately, we're talking about marking > almost 20k ports as parallel-safe. > > Why not taking the opposite approach? Allow it by default, figure out > which ports break and why, fix where possible? After talking with Pav, it seems it's still the best option as the breakage rate is quite high. -- Florent Thoumie [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ports/113132 (make -j patch)
On Wednesday 12 March 2008 14:01:57 Florent Thoumie wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This patch has been sitting in GNATS for a couple of months now: > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/113132 > > > > I've received a few mails from people reporting success, and none > > reporting that bad things have happened. Is it possible to get this > > committed? > > It needs to go through an experimental build first. > > IMHO, this is an ugly hack. Ultimately, we're talking about marking > almost 20k ports as parallel-safe. Because in requires modifications of individual port Makefiles? Or is there something else in it that you don't like? > Why not taking the opposite approach? Allow it by default, figure out > which ports break and why, fix where possible? For the following reason: This change has the potential to make port building fail in non-deterministic ways; a build might work one one machine all the time, but fail on another 10% of the time, because the 3rd party code that is being built is not -j-safe. It means that testing each individual port for support is required, which, as you point out, is a large amount of work in total (but it's not that much for each port). I think therefore that this should be handled by the port maintainers. If the list of ports which support -j-building is determined by an automated package build run, who will then have the responsibility to maintain that list? Since this change has the potential to break a lot of things, it should be off by default, and only be enabled if the port maintainer is sure that his port supports it. To enable it by default would require all port maintainers to get active immediately to blacklist the many ports which don't support -j building; this is not going to happen, ports will remain in a broken state. Also, the amount of work required to get an advantage from this change is actually not as high as you think. Of the 20k ports we have, only the big ones (e.g., kde*) gain a substantial benefit from -j building. Small ports that only compile for a few seconds anyway can be left as they are now. Cheers Benjamin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: ports/113132 (make -j patch)
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:11:51 +0100 Benjamin Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This patch has been sitting in GNATS for a couple of months now: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/113132 > > I've received a few mails from people reporting success, and none > reporting that bad things have happened. Is it possible to get this > committed? > > Cheers > Benjamin I'm not keen on the way MAKE_JOBS_WHITELIST is implemented as a list. It seems to be out of step with the way similar problems are handled elsewhere. I would have expected a simple flag that can be set per port using portsconf, pkgtools.conf, etc. This is more of a bikeshed issue, but the term MAKE_JOBS reflects implementation (gmake -j) rather than function, and its meaning isn't obvious the way something like PARALLEL_BUILD would be. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ports/113132 (make -j patch)
On Wednesday 12 March 2008 16:47:25 RW wrote: > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:11:51 +0100 > Benjamin Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This patch has been sitting in GNATS for a couple of months now: > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/113132 > > > > I've received a few mails from people reporting success, and none > > reporting that bad things have happened. Is it possible to get this > > committed? > > I'm not keen on the way MAKE_JOBS_WHITELIST is implemented as a list. > It seems to be out of step with the way similar problems are handled > elsewhere. I would have expected a simple flag that can be set per > port using portsconf, pkgtools.conf, etc. portconf and pkgtools.conf are files that are used by tools external to the base ports system (portmaster and portupgrade). The ports makefiles do not read them. The traditional place to put port configuration info is /etc/make.conf. Since using the whitelist is not intended to be an officially supported feature, but only exists to make life a bit easier for people who are debugging the ports or willing to experiment, I expect that on 99% of FreeBSD systems, the whitelist will not be specified at all. I therefore see no reason to increase the complexity of the whitelist parsing code by introducing non-make-compatible syntax. > This is more of a bikeshed issue, but the term MAKE_JOBS reflects > implementation (gmake -j) rather than function, and its meaning isn't > obvious the way something like PARALLEL_BUILD would be. The patch used the name PARALLEL in a previous incarnation; MAKE_JOBS was chosen to avoid misunderstandings and name conflicts with ongoing work to allow several ports to be built in parallel, independently of each other. MAKE_JOBS might not have as nice a ring to it, but the intention is clearer. Cheers Benjamin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
6.2 release ports packages gone missing?
I guess due to the 6.3 release all the 6.2 release packages got deleted? Why delete them? Are they placed somewhere else? $ pkg_add -nr net-snmp Error: FTP Unable to get ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6.2-release/Latest/net-snmp.tbz: File unavailable (e.g., file not found, no access) pkg_add: unable to fetch 'ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6.2-release/Latest/net-snmp.tbz' by URL Sean ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ports/113132 (make -j patch)
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:31:36 +0100 Benjamin Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 12 March 2008 16:47:25 RW wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:11:51 +0100 > > Benjamin Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This patch has been sitting in GNATS for a couple of months now: > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/113132 > > > > > > I've received a few mails from people reporting success, and none > > > reporting that bad things have happened. Is it possible to get > > > this committed? > > > > I'm not keen on the way MAKE_JOBS_WHITELIST is implemented as a > > list. It seems to be out of step with the way similar problems are > > handled elsewhere. I would have expected a simple flag that can be > > set per port using portsconf, pkgtools.conf, etc. > > portconf and pkgtools.conf are files that are used by tools external > to the base ports system (portmaster and portupgrade). The ports > makefiles do not read them. . Portconf is a simple script that's executed from /etc/make.conf, so it gets picked-up by everything. > The traditional place to put port > configuration info is /etc/make.conf Yes, conditional definition in make.conf was the "etc" > Since using the whitelist is not intended to be an officially > supported feature, but only exists to make life a bit easier for > people who are debugging the ports or willing to experiment, I expect > that on 99% of FreeBSD systems, the whitelist will not be specified > at all. But it's actually easier to do it consistently with the existing conventions, than the way you have it > I therefore see no reason to increase the complexity of the > whitelist parsing code by introducing non-make-compatible syntax. It eliminates the whitelist altogether. A FORCE_MAKE_JOBS flag would simply be ORed with the ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS flag. The also allows users to define their own logic in make.conf, for example to force parallel building for all ports that aren't on a user-defined blacklist. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ports/113132 (make -j patch)
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:45:46 +0100 Benjamin Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 12 March 2008 14:01:57 Florent Thoumie wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This patch has been sitting in GNATS for a couple of months now: > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/113132 > > > > > > I've received a few mails from people reporting success, and none > > > reporting that bad things have happened. Is it possible to get this > > > committed? > > > > It needs to go through an experimental build first. > > > > IMHO, this is an ugly hack. Ultimately, we're talking about marking > > almost 20k ports as parallel-safe. > > Because in requires modifications of individual port Makefiles? Or is there > something else in it that you don't like? > snip... > Also, the amount of work required to gete an advantage from this change is > actually not as high as you think. Of the 20k ports we have, only the big > ones (e.g., kde*) gain a substantial benefit from -j building. Small ports > that only compile for a few seconds anyway can be left as they are now. You may do better by or together with ports+, http://uyota.asablo.jp/blog/cat/portsplus/ . It allows to fetch and build independent ports at parallel. So, not only big ones but also small ones make benefit. It does not build ports in parallel. So, it won't break anything as they are now. Cheers, Hiro ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
