Re: Ports with binary bootstrap packages and CURRENT+ino64
On 03.01.2018 01:06, Anthony Jenkins wrote: > I'm having trouble building ports with a new Poudriere rig on a > 12.0-CURRENT (git commit 423586ee). The ports that fail are ones that > require a binary bootstrap package (e.g. lang/rust and java/openjdk8). > The executables in these bootstrap packages fail with a segfault as do > all executables build with a non-ino64 FreeBSD box. Like Jan, I'm surprised that it crashes. AFAIK, Rust builds fine in the official package building cluster, which is also running FreeBSD 12-CURRENT. I don't know what to suggest at this point, so I'll wait that you provide the information requested by Jan. -- Jean-Sébastien Pédron signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Ports with binary bootstrap packages and CURRENT+ino64
On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 03:31:46PM +0100, Jean-Sébastien Pédron wrote: On 03.01.2018 01:06, Anthony Jenkins wrote: I'm having trouble building ports with a new Poudriere rig on a 12.0-CURRENT (git commit 423586ee). The ports that fail are ones that require a binary bootstrap package (e.g. lang/rust and java/openjdk8). The executables in these bootstrap packages fail with a segfault as do all executables build with a non-ino64 FreeBSD box. Like Jan, I'm surprised that it crashes. AFAIK, Rust builds fine in the official package building cluster, which is also running FreeBSD 12-CURRENT. I don't know what to suggest at this point, so I'll wait that you provide the information requested by Jan. -- Jean-Sébastien Pédron Hi, guys! I have the same trouble with building java/openjdk8 with Poudriere: configure: Found potential Boot JDK using configure arguments configure: Potential Boot JDK found at /usr/local/bootstrap-openjdk8 is incorrect JDK version (Error occurred during initialization of VM); ignoring configure: (Your Boot JDK must be version 7 or 8) configure: error: The path given by --with-boot-jdk does not contain a valid Boot JDK configure exiting with result code 1 ===> Script "../../configure" failed unexpectedly. My version is 11.1-RELEASE-p4, so it is possible that the issue is not specific for the 12.0-CURRENT. I have an idea, that openjdk8 build process fails in a Poudriere jail, because of not mounted fdescfs and procfs. I've tried to mount these fs in the Poudriere jail, but failed. -- Dmytro Bilokha dmy...@posteo.net +38-050-607-41-43 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FLAVOR for Qt4 and Qt5 (was Re: Flavor or not for this port?)
Hi Mathieu,
Thank you for your review and tips.
I have just submitted the patch.
Rainer, QGis 2 may be able to use Qwt6 instead of Qwt5?
Regards.
Loïc
On 21.12.2017 17:10, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 19/12/2017 à 20:48, L.Bartoletti a écrit :
Hi,
Here's my WIP
https://gitlab.com/lbartoletti/freebsd_ports/tree/master/qwt6
As long as you are defining a default FLAVOR value, do it right:
FLAVOR?= ${FLAVORS:[1]}
There are a few stuffs that could be simplified, this works for both
flavors:|
|
|PLIST= ${PKGDIR}/pkg-plist.${FLAVOR} PLIST_SUB+=
QT_MKSPECDIR=lib/${FLAVOR}/mkspecs DOCSDIR=
${PREFIX}/share/doc/qwt6-${FLAVOR} And this: ||@${REINPLACE_CMD} -e
's/__QT_VERSION__/${FLAVOR:S/qt//}/g'
${WRKSRC}/qwtconfig.pri|
||
You are missing:
qt4_CONFLICTS_INSTALL= qwt6-qt5
qt5_CONFLICTS_INSTALL= qwt6-qt4
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Times to build just devel/llvm50 via poudriere-devel: Pine64+ 2GB, RPi3, RPi2 V1.1
All the below were: NO_ZFS=yes , USE_TMPFS=no , not using cccache, PARALLEL_JOBS=1 , ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS=yes . On the RPi2 V1.1 I also set: MAX_EXECUTION_TIME=432000 , NOHANG_TIME=28800 . Pine64+ 2GB: (so, 2GiBytes of RAM on cortex-a53, eMMC in usdcard slot via adapter) [05:45:14] [01] [00:00:00] Building devel/llvm50 | llvm50-5.0.0_6 [20:02:56] [01] [14:17:42] Finished devel/llvm50 | llvm50-5.0.0_6: Success RPi3: (1 GiByte of RAM on cortex-a53, eMMC in usdcard slot via adapter) [03:43:37] [01] [00:00:00] Building devel/llvm50 | llvm50-5.0.0_6 [22:56:56] [01] [19:13:19] Finished devel/llvm50 | llvm50-5.0.0_6: Success RPi2 V1.1: (1 GiByte of RAM on cortex-a7, USB SSD Stick on powered hub) [04:20:51] [01] [00:00:00] Building devel/llvm50 | llvm50-5.0.0_6 [37:40:02] [01] [33:19:11] Finished devel/llvm50 | llvm50-5.0.0_6: Success (Somewhat under 2 hr 25 min of that in package.) These were all with default options for devel/llvm50. eMCC performance notes: The rpi3 can get between 10 MiByte/s and 12 MiByte/s, while the Pine64+ 2GB can get between 5 MiBytes/s and 6 MiBytes/s, from what I have observed. Swap partition notes: All 3 had significant swap space configured. The RPi3 and RPi2 needed several hundred MiBytes, I had configured around 1.5 GiBytes. Building devel/cmake used more than building devel/llvm50 , at least on the RPi2: 973 MiBytes was observed in top for devel/cmake on the RPi2. poudriere-devel note: I had adjusted the non-parameterized, hard-coded timeouts in poudriere's scripts for the RPi2 V1.1 so that, for example, package would be allowed to finish. MAX_EXECUTION_TIME and NOHANG_TIME adjustments do not cause some stages to scale the time allowed. top note: I run a modified top that keeps track of and reports the "maximum observed used" figure for the swap usage. So that figure is a low bound on the actual maximum while top was monitoring. For reference: # uname -apKU FreeBSD rpi2 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT r327485M arm armv7 1200054 1200054 # svnlite info /usr/ports/ | grep "Re[plv]" Relative URL: ^/head Repository Root: svn://svn0.us-west.freebsd.org/ports Repository UUID: 35697150-7ecd-e111-bb59-0022644237b5 Revision: 457579 Last Changed Rev: 457579 === Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.net ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
using security/openssl in a port
Hi,
I maintain a port that has a new release which requires openssl 1.0.2 to
build. FreeBSD 10.3 and 10.4 both have openssl 1.0.1, and 11 onwards
have 1.0.2. Is there a magic way to have this port depend on ports
openssl for freebsd releases without openssl 1.0.2? I ran
find /usr/ports -exec grep "security/openssl" {} \; -print
and didn't find anything that I could use as a recipe. USES = ssl
doesn't seem to be it either.
Matthew
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: using security/openssl in a port
05.01.2018 9:11, Matthew Luckie wrote:
> I maintain a port that has a new release which requires openssl 1.0.2 to
> build. FreeBSD 10.3 and 10.4 both have openssl 1.0.1, and 11 onwards
> have 1.0.2. Is there a magic way to have this port depend on ports
> openssl for freebsd releases without openssl 1.0.2? I ran
>
> find /usr/ports -exec grep "security/openssl" {} \; -print
>
> and didn't find anything that I could use as a recipe. USES = ssl
> doesn't seem to be it either.
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/porting-versions.html
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/versions-11.html
FreeBSD had openssl-1.0.1 in the base before import of 1.0.2d (1100085),
so use this in the port's Makefile:
.if ${OPSYS} == FreeBSD && ${OSVERSION} < 1100085
# add dependency here
.endif
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: using security/openssl in a port
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:11:00 +1300 "Matthew Luckie" said
Hi,
I maintain a port that has a new release which requires openssl 1.0.2 to
build. FreeBSD 10.3 and 10.4 both have openssl 1.0.1, and 11 onwards
have 1.0.2. Is there a magic way to have this port depend on ports
openssl for freebsd releases without openssl 1.0.2? I ran
find /usr/ports -exec grep "security/openssl" {} \; -print
and didn't find anything that I could use as a recipe. USES = ssl
doesn't seem to be it either.
Matthew
Hello Matthew,
Have a look at ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk
In there you will find some clues for defining rules for building
for specific (bsd)OS versions -- like >=X, or .if OSREL <=XX ...
As well as only permitting build/install when the correct version
of security/openssl is found in the systems ports tree.
It's well commented, and should give you some good options to try.
It will also give some good clues to search the ports tree for. Where
you can simply copy someone else's work verbatim. :-)
You might also try the following alternative for searching;
cd /usr/ports
find . | xargs
HTH
--Chris
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: using security/openssl in a port
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:44:31 +1300 "Matthew Luckie" said
On 01/05/18 15:37, Chris H wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:11:00 +1300 "Matthew Luckie" said
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I maintain a port that has a new release which requires openssl 1.0.2 to
>> build. FreeBSD 10.3 and 10.4 both have openssl 1.0.1, and 11 onwards
>> have 1.0.2. Is there a magic way to have this port depend on ports
>> openssl for freebsd releases without openssl 1.0.2? I ran
>>
>> find /usr/ports -exec grep "security/openssl" {} \; -print
>>
>> and didn't find anything that I could use as a recipe. USES = ssl
>> doesn't seem to be it either.
>>
>> Matthew
> Hello Matthew,
> Have a look at ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk
> In there you will find some clues for defining rules for building
> for specific (bsd)OS versions -- like >=X, or .if OSREL <=XX ...
> As well as only permitting build/install when the correct version
> of security/openssl is found in the systems ports tree.
> It's well commented, and should give you some good options to try.
> It will also give some good clues to search the ports tree for. Where
> you can simply copy someone else's work verbatim. :-)
>
> You might also try the following alternative for searching;
> cd /usr/ports
> find . | xargs
>
> HTH
My main worry is that I could not find a single port that apparently
depends on security/openssl. I'm worried that its more complicated than
simply declaring a dependency on security/openssl on particular freebsd
versions because other ports that use openssl might link against it
without registering a dependency. Is my worry misplaced?
Openssl is a PITA. You *also* have to consider whether the user is using
openssl in $BASE, rather than the ports version. There are many variables
to consider, and I don't envy you on this. :-)
If you get something you think might work, feel free to ask about it. :-)
--Chris
Matthew
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: using security/openssl in a port
On 01/05/18 15:37, Chris H wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:11:00 +1300 "Matthew Luckie" said
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I maintain a port that has a new release which requires openssl 1.0.2 to
>> build. FreeBSD 10.3 and 10.4 both have openssl 1.0.1, and 11 onwards
>> have 1.0.2. Is there a magic way to have this port depend on ports
>> openssl for freebsd releases without openssl 1.0.2? I ran
>>
>> find /usr/ports -exec grep "security/openssl" {} \; -print
>>
>> and didn't find anything that I could use as a recipe. USES = ssl
>> doesn't seem to be it either.
>>
>> Matthew
> Hello Matthew,
> Have a look at ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk
> In there you will find some clues for defining rules for building
> for specific (bsd)OS versions -- like >=X, or .if OSREL <=XX ...
> As well as only permitting build/install when the correct version
> of security/openssl is found in the systems ports tree.
> It's well commented, and should give you some good options to try.
> It will also give some good clues to search the ports tree for. Where
> you can simply copy someone else's work verbatim. :-)
>
> You might also try the following alternative for searching;
> cd /usr/ports
> find . | xargs
>
> HTH
My main worry is that I could not find a single port that apparently
depends on security/openssl. I'm worried that its more complicated than
simply declaring a dependency on security/openssl on particular freebsd
versions because other ports that use openssl might link against it
without registering a dependency. Is my worry misplaced?
Matthew
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: using security/openssl in a port
On 05.01.2018 09:44, Matthew Luckie wrote: > My main worry is that I could not find a single port that apparently > depends on security/openssl. I'm worried that its more complicated than > simply declaring a dependency on security/openssl on particular freebsd > versions because other ports that use openssl might link against it > without registering a dependency. Is my worry misplaced? Why don't you read the Porter's Handbook? It has answers to all your questions: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/uses-ssl.html ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: using security/openssl in a port
On 1/5/18 5:09 PM, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > On 05.01.2018 09:44, Matthew Luckie wrote: > >> My main worry is that I could not find a single port that apparently >> depends on security/openssl. I'm worried that its more complicated than >> simply declaring a dependency on security/openssl on particular freebsd >> versions because other ports that use openssl might link against it >> without registering a dependency. Is my worry misplaced? > > Why don't you read the Porter's Handbook? It has answers to all your > questions: > > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/uses-ssl.html I already said that I considered USES = ssl and that it didn't seem to address my concerns. Can you please point me at a port that depends on OpenSSL from ports using USES = ssl (or whatever this page of the porters handbook is trying to tell me to do). Thanks, Matthew signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: using security/openssl in a port
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 17:16:30 +1300 "Matthew Luckie" said On 1/5/18 5:09 PM, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > On 05.01.2018 09:44, Matthew Luckie wrote: > >> My main worry is that I could not find a single port that apparently >> depends on security/openssl. I'm worried that its more complicated than >> simply declaring a dependency on security/openssl on particular freebsd >> versions because other ports that use openssl might link against it >> without registering a dependency. Is my worry misplaced? > > Why don't you read the Porter's Handbook? It has answers to all your > questions: > > > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/uses-ssl.html I already said that I considered USES = ssl and that it didn't seem to address my concerns. Can you please point me at a port that depends on OpenSSL from ports using USES = ssl (or whatever this page of the porters handbook is trying to tell me to do). Thanks, Matthew May I humbly suggest that you have a look at ports that near guarantee an *SSL option? Consider most of the web servers, and scripting languages, such as; php, python, and Perl. In fact I would venture a guess that most of the ports in the www category will hint to SSL. As well as the lang category, where the language is prominently used on the (inter)net. HTH --Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
