Re: Fairly Modern poudriere-devel on fairly modern main gets "mount_nullfs: /usr/local/poudriere/data/.m/NAME/ref/packages: Resource deadlock avoided" when operated in a chroot context.

ports-mgmt/poudriere-devel | > poudriere-devel-3.4.99.20250209 > [00:00:46] [01] [00:00:03] Finished ports-mgmt/poudriere-devel | > poudriere-devel-3.4.99.20250209: Success ending TMPFS: 2.96 GiB > [00:00:47] Stopping 5 builders > [00:00:47] Creating pkg repository > mount

Fairly Modern poudriere-devel on fairly modern main gets "mount_nullfs: /usr/local/poudriere/data/.m/NAME/ref/packages: Resource deadlock avoided" when operated in a chroot context.

t_nullfs: /usr/local/poudriere/data/.m/main-ZNV4-default/ref/packages: Resource deadlock avoided [00:00:47] Error: /usr/local/share/poudriere/bulk.sh:mount_packages:7:Failed to mount the packages directory It later reports: [00:00:47] Unmounting file systems Error: (50608) rm:rm:1: /usr/loc

PkgBase after LLVM 19 update: various packages still have old dates (and content)

https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:amd64/base_latest/?C=M&O=D has various .pkg files that still date back to: 2024-Oct-22 2024-Oct-20 2024-Oct-15 2024-Oct-14 2024-Oct-11 Includes *-libstdbuf-* *-libsdp-* *-libpathconv-* and various others Includes *-lib32-* and *-dbg-* variants 2024-Oc

Using package build records at pkg-status.freebsd.org (was: pkg: No packages available to install matching)

On 03/01/2023 17:45, Vladimir Boldin wrote: Can't findnet-im/telegram-desktop with|pkg search … | |Via : | || | ///Using package build records at pkg-status.freebsd.org/| || | | ||

pkg: No packages available to install matching

et-im/telegram-desktop| |Updating FreeBSD repository catalogue... FreeBSD repository is up to date. All repositories are up to date. pkg: No packages available to install matching 'net-im/telegram-desktop' have been found in the repositories| |root@beast:/home/user # pkg install telegram-desk

updating of prebuilt packages with pkg

o not have the /usr/src/ or /usr/ports/ trees installed in order to save space. For policy reasons these use pre-built packages and I will never compile anything from source on these systems. This one is on 12.3-RELEASE . Recently I encountered that the usual cadence of pkg update pkg upgraade pkg

Re: Building packages with poudriere fails after `zfs upgrade`

From: Samy Mahmoudi Subject: Re: Building packages with poudriere fails after `zfs upgrade` Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 20:54:13 -0400 > Have you tried to work around the issue by creating a new jail with > poudriere, > or even by changing the value of ZROOTFS in poudriere.conf ? T

Re: Building packages with poudriere fails after `zfs upgrade`

Hi, Have you tried to work around the issue by creating a new jail with poudriere, or even by changing the value of ZROOTFS in poudriere.conf ? Best regards, Samy Mahmoudi ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/li

Building packages with poudriere fails after `zfs upgrade`

Hello, I tried `zfs upgrade zroot` on my 13-CURRENT r366977 host and after that building packages with poudriere fails as following. [00:04:55] [02] [00:00:00] Building security/libtasn1 | libtasn1-4.16.0 [00:05:10] [02] [00:00:15] Finished security/libtasn1 | libtasn1-4.16.0: Success [00:05:10

Re: New external GCC toolchain ports/packages

wrote: > > > > On 12/19/19 12:06 PM, Ryan Libby wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:49 PM John Baldwin wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> In the interest of supporting newer versions of GCC for a base system > > > > >&

Re: New external GCC toolchain ports/packages

d, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:49 PM John Baldwin wrote: > > > >> > > > >> In the interest of supporting newer versions of GCC for a base system > > > >> toolchain, I've renamed the external GCC packages from -gcc > > > >> to -gcc6. These are built

Re: New external GCC toolchain ports/packages

erest of supporting newer versions of GCC for a base system > > >> toolchain, I've renamed the external GCC packages from -gcc > > >> to -gcc6. These are built as flavors of a new devel/freebsd-gcc6 > > >> port. The xtoolchain package is not used for these

Re: New external GCC toolchain ports/packages

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 09:24:00AM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > On 12/19/19 12:06 PM, Ryan Libby wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:49 PM John Baldwin wrote: > >> > >> In the interest of supporting newer versions of GCC for a base system > >> toolchain, I&

Re: New external GCC toolchain ports/packages

On 12/19/19 12:06 PM, Ryan Libby wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:49 PM John Baldwin wrote: >> >> In the interest of supporting newer versions of GCC for a base system >> toolchain, I've renamed the external GCC packages from -gcc >> to -gcc6. These are built a

Re: New external GCC toolchain ports/packages

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:49 PM John Baldwin wrote: > > In the interest of supporting newer versions of GCC for a base system > toolchain, I've renamed the external GCC packages from -gcc > to -gcc6. These are built as flavors of a new devel/freebsd-gcc6 > port. The xtool

Re: New external GCC toolchain ports/packages

On 12/18/19 4:16 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > > > On 2019-Dec-18, at 13:48, John Baldwin wrote: > >> In the interest of supporting newer versions of GCC for a base system >> toolchain, I've renamed the external GCC packages from -gcc >> to -gcc6. These are buil

Re: New external GCC toolchain ports/packages

On 2019-Dec-18, at 13:48, John Baldwin wrote: > In the interest of supporting newer versions of GCC for a base system > toolchain, I've renamed the external GCC packages from -gcc > to -gcc6. These are built as flavors of a new devel/freebsd-gcc6 > port. The xtoolchain pa

New external GCC toolchain ports/packages

In the interest of supporting newer versions of GCC for a base system toolchain, I've renamed the external GCC packages from -gcc to -gcc6. These are built as flavors of a new devel/freebsd-gcc6 port. The xtoolchain package is not used for these new packages, instead one does 'pkg in

Re: make packages broken

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:40 AM Andreas Nilsson wrote: > Hello all, > > It was time for the weekly update so git gave > me: c7cdb4a80779a0451dc2c04c3d6b30769049d402 . > > It compiled fined, but when I tried to build packages I get: > make -C /usr/src PKG_VERSION=13.0

make packages broken

Hello all, It was time for the weekly update so git gave me: c7cdb4a80779a0451dc2c04c3d6b30769049d402 . It compiled fined, but when I tried to build packages I get: make -C /usr/src PKG_VERSION=13.0.s20190603083918 real-packages make[5]: "/usr/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/toolchain-metadata.mk&

Re: base packages and 12 -> 13 upgrade

On 03.11.2018 18:05, Mikaël Urankar wrote: Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 15:45, Boris Samorodov a écrit : Hi All, A have a base package server and upgraded some of my home servers to use base packages. Now when the package builder builds packages for 13-current, what is the procedure to upgrade base

Re: base packages and 12 -> 13 upgrade

Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 15:45, Boris Samorodov a écrit : > > Hi All, > > A have a base package server and upgraded some of my home servers > to use base packages. Now when the package builder builds packages > for 13-current, what is the procedure to upgrade base packag

base packages and 12 -> 13 upgrade

Hi All, A have a base package server and upgraded some of my home servers to use base packages. Now when the package builder builds packages for 13-current, what is the procedure to upgrade base packages from 12 to 13? Whenever I try to install/upgrade packages I get: --- pkg-static: wrong

Re: make packages fails recent -current

On 11.09.2018 16:20, Andreas Nilsson wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:55 PM Mikaël Urankar wrote: 2018-09-10 17:45 GMT+02:00 Andreas Nilsson : Hello, I have for about a week been trying to get new (base)packages built. make buildworld/buildkernel works as expected, however make packages

Re: make packages fails recent -current

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:55 PM Mikaël Urankar wrote: > 2018-09-10 17:45 GMT+02:00 Andreas Nilsson : > >> Hello, >> >> I have for about a week been trying to get new (base)packages built. make >> buildworld/buildkernel works as expected, however mak

Re: make packages fails recent -current

2018-09-10 17:45 GMT+02:00 Andreas Nilsson : > Hello, > > I have for about a week been trying to get new (base)packages built. make > buildworld/buildkernel works as expected, however make packages has been > failing: > > ===> Creating FreeBSD-runtime-12.0.s2018091

make packages fails recent -current

Hello, I have for about a week been trying to get new (base)packages built. make buildworld/buildkernel works as expected, however make packages has been failing: ===> Creating FreeBSD-runtime-12.0.s20180910124534 pkg: duplicate directory listing: /boot, ignoring pkg: duplicate directory list

Re: New conflict between the FreeBSD-libnv-development and FreeBSD-runtime-development packages

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:58 AM, Tobias Kortkamp wrote: > Hi, > > there's a new conflict between the FreeBSD-{libnv,runtime}-development > base packages. This was for r336096 but the problem must have been > introduced after r335966 as the packages from that revision were

New conflict between the FreeBSD-libnv-development and FreeBSD-runtime-development packages

Hi, there's a new conflict between the FreeBSD-{libnv,runtime}-development base packages. This was for r336096 but the problem must have been introduced after r335966 as the packages from that revision were fine. Checking integrity... done (1 conflicting) - FreeBSD-libnv-development

Re: ci.freebsd.org's FreeBSD-head-i386-testvm fails for: pkg: No packages available to install matching 'scapy' have been found in the repositories

pository catalogue... > 22:34:39 FreeBSD repository is up to date. > 22:34:39 All repositories are up to date. > 22:34:39 Updating database digests format: . done > 22:34:39 pkg: No packages available to install matching 'scapy' have been > found in the repositories > 22

ci.freebsd.org's FreeBSD-head-i386-testvm fails for: pkg: No packages available to install matching 'scapy' have been found in the repositories

repositories are up to date. 22:34:39 Updating database digests format: . done 22:34:39 pkg: No packages available to install matching 'scapy' have been found in the repositories 22:34:39 Build step 'Execute shell' marked build as failure 22:34:39 FTP: Current build result is [FAILUR

create-kernel-packages-extra-flavor-debug: *** Error code 70: Unable to open plist

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On recent CURRENT with recent CURRENT sources (r334490), building FreeBSD packages for FreeBSD-base fails on arm64.aarch64 with a custom kernel (see below). WITH_META_MODE is used. Such problems do not occur when building "make package

Re: pkg, drm-next-kmod and base packages

10.05.2018 19:05, Andreas Nilsson пишет: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Theron wrote: > >> On 05/10/18 03:45, Johannes Dieterich wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, Boris Samorodov wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >

Re: pkg, drm-next-kmod and base packages

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Theron wrote: > On 05/10/18 03:45, Johannes Dieterich wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, Boris Samorodov wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I use self-built base packages. How can I test/use drm-n

Re: pkg, drm-next-kmod and base packages

On 05/10/18 03:45, Johannes Dieterich wrote: Hi On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, Boris Samorodov wrote: Hi All, I use self-built base packages. How can I test/use drm-next-kmod? Packages for kernel and drm-nex-kmod are in conflict: - Checking integrity... done (1 conflicting) - drm-next-kmod

Re: pkg, drm-next-kmod and base packages

Hi On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, Boris Samorodov wrote: > Hi All, > > I use self-built base packages. How can I test/use drm-next-kmod? > Packages for kernel and drm-nex-kmod are in conflict: > - > ╰→ sudo pkg install drm-next-kmod-4.11.g20180224 > > Updating FreeBSD-b

pkg, drm-next-kmod and base packages

Hi All, I use self-built base packages. How can I test/use drm-next-kmod? Packages for kernel and drm-nex-kmod are in conflict: - ╰→ sudo pkg install drm-next-kmod-4.11.g20180224 Updating FreeBSD-base repository catalogue... FreeBSD-base repository is up to date. Updating FreeBSD repository

Re: Conflict between FreeBSD-binutils and FreeBSD-lld packages

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018, at 02:38, Ed Maste wrote: > On 2 March 2018 at 04:34, Tobias Kortkamp wrote: > > Building pkgbase packages with r330236 results in FreeBSD-binutils and > > FreeBSD-lld packages conflicting with each other. Both want to > > install /usr/share/man/man1/ld

Re: Conflict between FreeBSD-binutils and FreeBSD-lld packages

On 2 March 2018 at 04:34, Tobias Kortkamp wrote: > Building pkgbase packages with r330236 results in FreeBSD-binutils and > FreeBSD-lld packages conflicting with each other. Both want to > install /usr/share/man/man1/ld.1.gz Thanks for the report; this should be fixed as o

Conflict between FreeBSD-binutils and FreeBSD-lld packages

Building pkgbase packages with r330236 results in FreeBSD-binutils and FreeBSD-lld packages conflicting with each other. Both want to install /usr/share/man/man1/ld.1.gz For now I'm working around it by manually extracting FreeBSD-lld. FreeBSD-binutils should install its man page as ld.bfd

Re: [self base packages] pkg: packages for wrong OS version: FreeBSD:12:amd64

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:32:26AM -0500, Ryan Stone wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > One has to specify pkg -o OSVERSION=1200055 to allow packages built on > > 1200055 > > to install on 1200054. > > This workaround doesn't

Re: [self base packages] pkg: packages for wrong OS version: FreeBSD:12:amd64

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > One has to specify pkg -o OSVERSION=1200055 to allow packages built on 1200055 > to install on 1200054. This workaround doesn't appear to work for pkg bootstrap: # pkg -o OSVERSION=1200055 bootstrap The package management

Re: [self base packages] pkg: packages for wrong OS version: FreeBSD:12:amd64

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 08:57:34AM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 19:53 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:29:04PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I use self built base p

Re: [self base packages] pkg: packages for wrong OS version: FreeBSD:12:amd64

On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 19:53 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:29:04PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I use self built base packages. Seems that I have a problem with pkg. > > Today I've got this: > &g

Re: [self base packages] pkg: packages for wrong OS version: FreeBSD:12:amd64

(distupgrade vs upgrade) to perform complete version upgrades. Ideally, the proper fix would probably be to depend on a base package version, rather than OSVERSION, and if the base packages are not being used to synthesise a phantom set of base package metadata based on OS

Re: [self base packages] pkg: packages for wrong OS version: FreeBSD:12:amd64

10.01.2018 21:53, Baptiste Daroussin пишет: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:29:04PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I use self built base packages. Seems that I have a problem with pkg. >> Today I've got this: >> === >> % sudo pkg update -f &

Re: [self base packages] pkg: packages for wrong OS version: FreeBSD:12:amd64

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:29:04PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > Hi All, > > I use self built base packages. Seems that I have a problem with pkg. > Today I've got this: > === > % sudo pkg update -f > Updating FreeBSD-base repository catalogue... > Fetching meta

[self base packages] pkg: packages for wrong OS version: FreeBSD:12:amd64

Hi All, I use self built base packages. Seems that I have a problem with pkg. Today I've got this: === % sudo pkg update -f Updating FreeBSD-base repository catalogue... Fetching meta.txz: 100%268 B 0.3kB/s00:01 Fetching packagesite.txz: 100% 29 KiB 29.4kB/s00:01 Proce

CUURENT: Cross-build for 11.1-RELENG (base packages) fails: *** [create-kernel-packages] Error code 70

/kernel.GENERIC-debug.plist *** [create-kernel-packages] Error code 70 make[5]: stopped in /pool/sources/11.1-RELENG/src 1 error make[5]: stopped in /pool/sources/11.1-RELENG/src *** [create-kernel-packages] Error code 2 ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org

base packages and subdirs with no regular files

Hi All! I use base package for more then a year now. It works mostly fine. However today I noticed that (some?) blank subdirectories are not removed while updating: --- % LANG=C ls -l /usr/lib/clang drwxr-xr-x 4 root wheel 4 Dec 22 2016 3.9.1 drwxr-xr-x 4 root wheel 4 Mar 3 2017 4.0.0 drw

[base packages] [r325303 -> r325351] install: hcsecd.conf: Permission denied

Hi All, I create packages (as an ordinary user with command "make packages") for HEAD once a day. Today I've got a regression: --- rev. 325351 regression --- install -U -M /usr/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/worldstage//METALOG -D /usr/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/worldstage -T package=runt

Re: [pkg base][pormaster] Origin for base packages = "base"

Hi Ilya, I saw same issue yesterday. I suppose it's easy to fix postmaster, but pkgbase is still experimental. Best regards, Michael 14 авг. 2017 г. 2:57 ПП пользователь "Ilya A. Arkhipov" написал: > Hi there, > > After upgrade my system(r322368) to pkg-base syst

[pkg base][pormaster] Origin for base packages = "base"

Hi there, After upgrade my system(r322368) to pkg-base system(have 780 packages for world and kernel) I got next issue: [11:53am] root:/root # portmaster -a ===>>> Gathering distinfo list for installed ports ===>>> Starting check of installed ports for

Re: status of and/or url to check base packages repo somewhere?

g fetch ... pkg add ...' which would substitute for the > buildworld > cycle? Also, one would be rebooted into a GENERIC kernel, ... and other > details ? > There is no public repository for base packages as of yet. It is still highly considered a 'beta' feature at thi

status of and/or url to check base packages repo somewhere?

As the Subject: is there a canonical url to check, and a procedure in place yet, to, for instance, if one cannot buildworld on 12.0-CURRENT, to access the package .txz or whatever and 'pkg fetch ... pkg add ...' which would substitute for the buildworld cycle? Also, one would be rebooted

Re: (head users) 64-bit inodes: Packages heads up and Poudriere errors

vised to upgrade your system past r318736 soon or avoid using > official packages until you do. Portmgr may upgrade the package > builders at any time and without much notice. I had forgotten a detail here. The package builds are all automated. The source jails are automatically updated b

Re: (head users) 64-bit inodes: Packages heads up and Poudriere errors

On 26 May 2017 at 12:18, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >> For those running FreeBSD head, the ABI was majorly changed in r318736 >> for 64-bit inodes. This change was *backwards compatible* but not >> *forward compatible*. This is normal and expected. > > Is any fall-out from this change already ha

Re: (head users) 64-bit inodes: Packages heads up and Poudriere errors

Hi! > For those running FreeBSD head, the ABI was majorly changed in r318736 > for 64-bit inodes. This change was *backwards compatible* but not > *forward compatible*. This is normal and expected. Is any fall-out from this change already handled or is it wise to wait a few more days ? -- p..

(head users) 64-bit inodes: Packages heads up and Poudriere errors

For those running FreeBSD head, the ABI was majorly changed in r318736 for 64-bit inodes. This change was *backwards compatible* but not *forward compatible*. This is normal and expected. For Pkg users: You are advised to upgrade your system past r318736 soon or avoid using official packages

Re: base packages, ino64 and upgrade

24.05.2017 16:00, Glen Barber пишет: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 03:47:47PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Does anyone know the procedure to upgrade for those using base packages? > > 'pkg install FreeBSD-kernel-generic' (or whatever your kern

Re: base packages, ino64 and upgrade

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 03:47:47PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > Hi All, > > Does anyone know the procedure to upgrade for those using base packages? > 'pkg install FreeBSD-kernel-generic' (or whatever your kernel package is called), reboot, 'pkg upgrade'. G

base packages, ino64 and upgrade

Hi All, Does anyone know the procedure to upgrade for those using base packages? -- WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam) FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman

pkg, base packages and subdirectories

Hi All, I've created my base repo and installed the OS from packages. All in all it all went rather smooth! As for pkg it seems to not pay attention to base library subdirs: - # pkg check -Ba Checking all packages: 3% (FreeBSD-kernel-sm-12.0.s20170128125723) /boot/kernel/k

Re: why 100 packages are evil

re) for freebsd-update to jump one major release. After that, > it takes pkg a minute or two to update the 2-3GB of packages that need > upgrading. Minor releases can often take tens of minutes on these system. > > The many files issue can cause inode exhaustion. One one machine, I j

Re: why 100 packages are evil

e patchlevel to the next are pretty straightforward, but on both the VMs that I use for FreeBSD and a slow AMD machine with ZFS it takes around an hour (sometimes more) for freebsd-update to jump one major release. After that, it takes pkg a minute or two to update the 2-3GB of packages that nee

Re: why 100 packages are evil

On 25/04/2016 08:39, Miroslav Lachman wrote: Gerrit Kühn wrote on 04/25/2016 07:48: On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:52:32 +0100 Matthew Seaman wrote about Re: why 100 packages are evil: MS> > Is freebsd-update going away as result of the new packaging ? Yes. It will be replaced by '

Re: why 100 packages are evil

Gerrit Kühn wrote on 04/25/2016 07:48: On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:52:32 +0100 Matthew Seaman wrote about Re: why 100 packages are evil: MS> > Is freebsd-update going away as result of the new packaging ? Yes. It will be replaced by 'pkg upgrade' -- as far as I know, that

Re: why 100 packages are evil

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:52:32 +0100 Matthew Seaman wrote about Re: why 100 packages are evil: MS> > Is freebsd-update going away as result of the new packaging ? > Yes. It will be replaced by 'pkg upgrade' -- as far as I know, that's > the plan for 11.0-RELEASE. Hm.

Re: why 100 packages are evil

On 23/04/2016 17:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message , Lyndon > Neren > berg writes: > >> With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we >> do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record >> of why and how this happened. > >

Re: why 100 packages are evil

In message , Lyndon Neren berg writes: >With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we >do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record >of why and how this happened. Is freebsd-update going away as result of the new packaging ? --

Re: why 100 packages are evil

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:41:06PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > But the dependency base will be huge. Yet you fail to explain how. > Right now I can count on a very limited set of dependencies for > anything I ship as a 3rd party package. How is this different than the existing model? What

Re: why 100 packages are evil

Same as it is now for releases. Packages will be available for SAs/ENs. There is no intention to change this model. I get that. But the dependency base will be huge. Right now I can count on a very limited set of dependencies for anything I ship as a 3rd party package. Doing that for n>

Re: why 100 packages are evil

r track record of > > why and how this happened. > > > > What will be the new update frequency with >100 base packages? > > Same as it is now for releases. Packages will be available for SAs/ENs. > > There is no intention to change this model. > Furthermore, no

Re: why 100 packages are evil

new update frequency with >100 base packages? Same as it is now for releases. Packages will be available for SAs/ENs. There is no intention to change this model. Glen signature.asc Description: PGP signature

why 100 packages are evil

Here's a real example. I have n Centos servers. Cron, once or twice a day, updates our local cache of the yum repos. Then nagios comes along and flags 35 packages out of date. An hour later, management comes along asking questions about the security implications of those packages. An

bsdconfig not able to get packages from freebsd ftp site

hi all: i am trying install packages with bsdconfig on freebsd 10.1 and failed. it stuck at the following message for a while : "Attempting to update repository catalogue from selected media" finally it gave up with following message: "No pkg(8) database found&

SSP now default for ports/packages, ssp/new_xorg repository EOL

Ports and Package users, Ports now have SSP enabled by default. The package repository will now build SSP by default as well. SSP is "Stack Smashing Protection" and can be read about at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_overflow_protection. This only applies to the head (/latest

libmap.conf vs packages and whatnot

Hello, turns out that we got some additional cost when executing binaries. I'm not declaring I'm going to do any work on this, but I'd like to state why I don't like current approach. It's just my $0,03. So we got libmap.conf + /usr/local/etc/libmap.d directory. This results in: lstat("/etc",{

Re: installing packages into a mounted system

ue FreeBSD repository is up-to-date All repositories are up-to-date The following 5 packages will be affected (of 0 checked): New packages to be INSTALLED: autoconf: 2.69 indexinfo: 0.2 perl5: 5.16.3_11 m4: 1.4.17_1,1 autoconf-wrapper: 20131203 The pr

Re: installing packages into a mounted system

t; > > >From the man page: > > pkg [-v] [-d] [-l] [-N] [-j | -c > path>] > > > > You could try copying pkg-static inside the chroot and use > > pkg-static -c (from the host, don't invoke the chroot command > > manually). > > > > I h

Re: installing packages into a mounted system

g-static inside the chroot and use pkg-static -c > (from the host, don't invoke the chroot command manually). > > I have been installing packages to jails this way for a while. # pkg-static -c /mnt install xorg-7.7 gives the same error messages as above. Thanks matthias

installing packages into a mounted system

Hello, I've compiled ~1300 packages with poudriere 3.1pre on a 'head' system; went fine; mounted below /mnt is a complete new system (an USB key) which boots fine alreaday; the 1300 resulting *.txz file are copied into /mnt/PKGDIR in the past, using the pkg_* tools, I could j

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:28:06 + Matthew Seaman wrote: > > Which is not always true, especially in heavily firewalled > > environments. > > I feel no obligation to do anything to encourage people that > deliberately break the DNS. They've made their bed, and now they have > to lie in it. In

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

Am 02/11/13 23:19, schrieb Mark Felder: On Nov 2, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: A lot of HTTP infrastructure lives on anycast DNS, HTTP redirects and geoip records. Saying it's broken and not feasible is nonsense. More specifically what I was referring to was the fact that tradition

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

On Nov 2, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > A lot of HTTP infrastructure lives on anycast DNS, HTTP redirects and > geoip records. Saying it's broken and not feasible is nonsense. More specifically what I was referring to was the fact that traditionally HTTP failover with round-robin A r

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

On 2 November 2013 10:44, Mark Felder wrote: > But SRV has been widely deployed since… before 2000? It’s literally the > backbone of Active Directory deployments. Here’s a list of things that his > company’s network design probably breaks: > > * Office 365 (cloud Exchange hosting by Microsoft;

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

Am 02.11.2013 11:50, schrieb Matthew Seaman: > On 02/11/2013 10:15, Matthias Andree wrote: >> I understand from Eric's pist that the issue is that through his >> limiting proxies, the SRV are not available at all so he does not even >> get to the point where he could get the pkgN.nyi.freebsd.org >>

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

On Nov 2, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > You're using a DNS feature which > isn't well adopted/supported and you haven't provided a fallback > legacy, well tested path. But SRV has been widely deployed since… before 2000? It’s literally the backbone of Active Directory deployments. H

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

On 2 November 2013 05:28, Matthew Seaman wrote: > I feel no obligation to do anything to encourage people that > deliberately break the DNS. They've made their bed, and now they have > to lie in it. > Holy, holy crap. * We (as FreeBSD) are not big enough to dictate the direction that technolog

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 09:01:56 -0500, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > On 11/02/2013 07:28 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> I feel no obligation to do anything to encourage people that >> deliberately break the DNS. They've made their bed, and now they have >> to lie in it. > > Eric Camachat didn't break the

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

Am 02.11.2013 11:51 schrieb "Matthew Seaman" : > > On 02/11/2013 10:15, Matthias Andree wrote: > > I understand from Eric's pist that the issue is that through his > > limiting proxies, the SRV are not available at all so he does not even > > get to the point where he could get the pkgN.nyi.freebsd

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

Hi! > On 02/11/2013 10:15, Matthias Andree wrote: > > I understand from Eric's pist that the issue is that through his > > limiting proxies, the SRV are not available at all so he does not even > > get to the point where he could get the pkgN.nyi.freebsd.org > > name

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

On 11/02/2013 07:28 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 02/11/2013 11:37, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! On 02/11/2013 10:15, Matthias Andree wrote: I understand from Eric's pist that the issue is that through his limiting proxies, the SRV are not available at all so he does not even get to the point where

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

On 02/11/2013 11:37, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >> On 02/11/2013 10:15, Matthias Andree wrote: >>> I understand from Eric's pist that the issue is that through his >>> limiting proxies, the SRV are not available at all so he does not even >>> get to the point where he could get the pkgN.nyi.freebs

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

On 02/11/2013 10:15, Matthias Andree wrote: > I understand from Eric's pist that the issue is that through his > limiting proxies, the SRV are not available at all so he does not even > get to the point where he could get the pkgN.nyi.freebsd.org > name back. That doe

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

Matthew Seaman schrieb: >On 02/11/2013 01:55, Eric van Gyzen wrote: >> This kind of proxy configuration is not uncommon. It would be >awesome >> if this would Just Work. It would remove an impediment to adoption, >> which is especially important in the kind of environments that have >this >> k

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

On 02/11/2013 01:55, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > This kind of proxy configuration is not uncommon. It would be awesome > if this would Just Work. It would remove an impediment to adoption, > which is especially important in the kind of environments that have this > kind of proxy configuration. > > S

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

On 10/31/2013 05:21 PM, Freddie Cash wrote: >tried pkg.freebsd.org it got below. >Our DNS server can resolve proxy server only. >Only proxy server can resolve internet sites, this is how our company force >all traffic went through proxy server. > >Eric > >Network Error (dns_server_failure) > >

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Eric Camachat wrote: > browsing www.freebsd.org worked fine. > tried pkg.freebsd.org it got below. > Our DNS server can resolve proxy server only. > Only proxy server can resolve internet sites, this is how our company force > all traffic went through proxy server.

Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

browsing www.freebsd.org worked fine. tried pkg.freebsd.org it got below. Our DNS server can resolve proxy server only. Only proxy server can resolve internet sites, this is how our company force all traffic went through proxy server. Eric Network Error (dns_server_failure) Your request could

  1   2   3   >