The intention is to move from the following:
- 90% of our userbase use ports, 10% use packages
to
- 90% of our userbase use packages, 10% use ports
so that we can save people a dreadful amount of time and hassle.
That's really all that is happening here.
mcl
On 27 June 2012 20:17, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2012-Jun-26 14:41:32 -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
>>On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>>> but I hope the ports build system will not
>>> be thrown out as part of the pkgng migration.
>>
>>Where do you think packages would come from
On 2012-Jun-26 14:41:32 -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> but I hope the ports build system will not
>> be thrown out as part of the pkgng migration.
>
>Where do you think packages would come from, if not built by the ports tree?
>;)
As long as
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:47:26AM +0200, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
> On 26.06.2012 17:21, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Baptiste Daroussin
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> >>> Matthew Seaman:
> >>>
> On 26/0
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:50:48PM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Baptiste Daroussin
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> > >> Matthew Seaman :
> > >>
> > >> > O
On 26.06.2012 17:21, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
Matthew Seaman:
On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
1. Ports are not modular
What do you mean by modular? if yo
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:31:40AM +0200, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> On 06/26/12 11:03, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
> > Yes, it will multiply the number of ports. By three is about right,
> > given that most ports will only have port-docs and port-examples
> > sub-ports. However, first of all, you ar
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 07:09:55AM -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:22:28AM +0200, Florent Peterschmitt
> > wrote:
> > > 2. Why do we have to put WITH_NEW_XORG in /etc/make.conf to
> > > get it ? Why not put this var in a port configura
Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:22:28AM +0200, Florent Peterschmitt
> wrote:
> > 2. Why do we have to put WITH_NEW_XORG in /etc/make.conf to
> > get it ? Why not put this var in a port configuration file
> > which will be read by all ports needing this var ?
>
> Because this
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> but I hope the ports build system will not
> be thrown out as part of the pkgng migration.
Where do you think packages would come from, if not built by the ports tree? ;)
--
Freddie Cash
fjwc...@gmail.com
__
On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 26/06/2012 19:46, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> > I can't see that from the rough outline given earlier. What I understood
> > is that some stagedir is used to build mono, then packages (-lib, -doc,
> > -whatever) are created and installed.
> > If you d
On 2012-Jun-26 20:50:48 +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
>Archlinux does provide complete packages, which makes perfect sense for
>me. I still do not see any reason or argument on why we would need
>sub-packages.
The most obvious reasons are the compiler ports. If I compile
something (eg mplayer -
On 2012-Jun-26 17:40:08 +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
>Also, with pkgng the emphasis is more on binary upgrades. We really
>shouldn't still be compiling from source for everything in this day
>and age-- we're one of only two major projects that still do this as
>the main upgrade solution.
One of the
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:43:11 -0500, Marcus von Appen
wrote:
That sound good to me and something I'd vote for, since it does not
split ports on a technical, but functional level into packages.
Yes this is exactly what we're aiming for. Right now if someone installs
FreeBSD and they pkg_add
On 26/06/2012 19:46, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> I can't see that from the rough outline given earlier. What I understood
> is that some stagedir is used to build mono, then packages (-lib, -doc,
> -whatever) are created and installed.
> If you do not use downloaded packages, but install them yoursel
On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Mark Felder wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:42:54 -0500, Marcus von Appen
> wrote:
> >
> > That said, I might assume that the sqlite solution is faster, but noone
> > can see that yet.
> >
>
> The new system will be much, much better overall and people just need to
> stop ma
On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Mark Felder wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:50:48 -0500, Marcus von Appen
> wrote:
>
> > I still do not see any reason or argument on why we would need
> > sub-packages.
>
> I want up to date packages for all my servers. My servers all have
> different requirements -- I want
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:50:48 -0500, Marcus von Appen
wrote:
I still do not see any reason or argument on why we would need
sub-packages.
I want up to date packages for all my servers. My servers all have
different requirements -- I want Apache with LDAP here, and definitely
Apache witho
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:42:54 -0500, Marcus von Appen
wrote:
That said, I might assume that the sqlite solution is faster, but noone
can see that yet.
The new system will be much, much better overall and people just need to
stop making conclusions without knowing all the facts. It's going
On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
[...]
> > >> 2. Option system is not really well documented
> > > What kind of documentation do you need?, please report what you are
> > > expected so
> > > that we can improve it
> > >
> > >> 3. Some dependencies are totally useless
> > > Please r
On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> >> Matthew Seaman :
> >>
> >> > On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> >> 1. Ports are not modular
> >> >
On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
> On 26.06.2012 11:03, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > On 26/06/2012 09:17, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> >> On 06/26/12 09:58, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> >>> On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> >> 1. Ports are not modular
> > What do you mea
On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Mark Felder wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:31:40 -0500, Andrea Venturoli
> wrote:
>
> >
> > The "effort" will be 3x processing time for portupgrade (or whatever) to
> > update the package database 3 times as much as before.
>
> pkgng uses sqlite. Please provide proof that i
On 26/06/2012 17:17, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> I'd gladly try sqlite instead of the current pkgdb and see: is it
> possible to switch without any side-effect or complication?
Just install ports-mgmt/pkg and follow the instructions. At the moment
the change is effectively to give you the new /var/
On 26 June 2012 16:20, RW wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:31:01 +0100
> Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
>
>> What's different in the new scheme?
>>
>> 1 options dialogue
>> 2 fetch & verify distfiles
>> 3 extract
>> 4 patch
>> 5 configure
>> 6 compile
>> 7 install to staging directory tree *
On 26/06/2012 16:20, RW wrote:
> The staging area is appealing in its own right. I'm less keen
> on sub-packages which are going to break update tools. I think it's
> very likely that only portmaster would survive.
Yes -- omlettes, eggs etc. There will be some inevitable disruption in
the ports
On 26/06/2012 17:00, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> I'm not sure I undestood correctly (from this and other posts); please
> correct me if I'm wrong:
> _ the whole thing is aimed at packages; I won't be able to install ports
> directly, but I'll get an intermediate step that creates packages
> automatic
On 06/26/12 16:34, Mark Felder wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:31:40 -0500, Andrea Venturoli
wrote:
The "effort" will be 3x processing time for portupgrade (or whatever)
to update the package database 3 times as much as before.
pkgng uses sqlite. Please provide proof that it is as slow or slo
On 06/26/12 17:20, RW wrote:
In my experience most of he time is spent building
This is not necessarily true.
Try X.Org (with all its very small ports) or MIMEDefang (depending on
gobs of p5- ports) or anything else alike.
You'll find out a good share of the total time is spent maintaining
On 06/26/12 12:42, Matthew Seaman wrote:
What I anticipate will often happen is installing some port, finding out
that some part is missing, install the missing part, repeat that several
times.
I just hope I'm wrong (and again, it is at all possible that I am wrong
here).
Yes, you raise a vali
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Florent Peterschmitt
wrote:
> For the GNOME question, if an option in the GNOME configuration port says
> "[x] Yelp, will break help menus if not set", then no problem, don't you
> think ?
It doesn't make any sense to do that. KDE and GNOME are a bloat
desktop, a
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
>> Matthew Seaman :
>>
>> > On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
>> 1. Ports are not modular
>> >
>> >>> What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking abou
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:31:01 +0100
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> What's different in the new scheme?
>
> 1 options dialogue
> 2 fetch & verify distfiles
> 3 extract
> 4 patch
> 5 configure
> 6 compile
> 7 install to staging directory tree ***
> 8 create packages, sub-packages ***
> 9
Matthew Seaman :
On 26/06/2012 12:07, Marcus von Appen wrote:
Sub-ports should be much more efficient, as there's a lot of the work
involved in installing which is a one-time thing when installing port
plus some collection of sub-ports.
How does that look like in detail? Are there any concep
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:31:40 -0500, Andrea Venturoli
wrote:
The "effort" will be 3x processing time for portupgrade (or whatever) to
update the package database 3 times as much as before.
pkgng uses sqlite. Please provide proof that it is as slow or slower than
our current package data
On 26/06/2012 12:07, Marcus von Appen wrote:
>> Sub-ports should be much more efficient, as there's a lot of the work
>> involved in installing which is a one-time thing when installing port
>> plus some collection of sub-ports.
> How does that look like in detail? Are there any concepts on about
Matthew Seaman :
On 26/06/2012 10:31, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
On 06/26/12 11:03, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Yes, it will multiply the number of ports. By three is about right,
given that most ports will only have port-docs and port-examples
sub-ports. However, first of all, you are assuming that
On 26/06/2012 10:31, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> On 06/26/12 11:03, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
>> Yes, it will multiply the number of ports. By three is about right,
>> given that most ports will only have port-docs and port-examples
>> sub-ports. However, first of all, you are assuming that the effo
On 26.06.2012 11:03, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 26/06/2012 09:17, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
On 06/26/12 09:58, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
1. Ports are not modular
What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it
is coming,
but it takes
On 06/26/12 11:03, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Yes, it will multiply the number of ports. By three is about right,
given that most ports will only have port-docs and port-examples
sub-ports. However, first of all, you are assuming that the effort
required to install each of those sub-ports is the sa
On 26/06/2012 09:17, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> On 06/26/12 09:58, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> 1. Ports are not modular
>>
What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it
is coming,
but it takes time
>>
>>> I hope,
Baptiste Daroussin :
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
Matthew Seaman :
> On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
1. Ports are not modular
>
>>> What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it
>>> is coming,
>>> but it takes time
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:17:12AM +0200, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> On 06/26/12 09:58, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> 1. Ports are not modular
> >
> >>> What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it
> >>> is coming,
> >>> but it
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> Matthew Seaman :
>
> > On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> 1. Ports are not modular
> >
> >>> What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it
> >>> is coming,
> >>> but it takes time
> >
> >>
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:26:45AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
>
> Baptiste Daroussin :
>
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:22:28AM +0200, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I'm not a developer and I know how it's difficult to make a port (or
> >> some ports, for example VirtualBox
Matthew Seaman :
On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
1. Ports are not modular
What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it
is coming,
but it takes time
I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (foo-bin,
foo-dev, foo-doc, ).
Ac
On 06/26/12 09:58, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
1. Ports are not modular
What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it
is coming,
but it takes time
I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (foo-bin,
foo-de
Snippets from Jeremy Messenger ^ and Florent
Peterschmitt > :
> 2. Why do we have to put WITH_NEW_XORG in /etc/make.conf to get it ? Why not
> put this var in a port configuration file which will be read by all ports
> needing this var ?
^ I am trying to figure out why it's hard to put the WIT
On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
>>> 1. Ports are not modular
>> What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it
>> is coming,
>> but it takes time
> I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (foo-bin,
> foo-dev, foo-doc, ).
Actually, y
Baptiste Daroussin :
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:22:28AM +0200, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
Hello,
I'm not a developer and I know how it's difficult to make a port (or
some ports, for example VirtualBox) but I think the port system has many
"problems":
1. Ports are not modular
What do you mea
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:22:28AM +0200, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm not a developer and I know how it's difficult to make a port (or
> some ports, for example VirtualBox) but I think the port system has many
> "problems":
>
> 1. Ports are not modular
What do you mean by modul
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Florent Peterschmitt
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm not a developer and I know how it's difficult to make a port (or some
> ports, for example VirtualBox) but I think the port system has many
> "problems":
>
> 1. Ports are not modular
> 2. Option system is not really well
On 06/26/12 00:22, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
Hello,
I'm not a developer and I know how it's difficult to make a port (or
some ports, for example VirtualBox) but I think the port system has many
"problems":
1. Ports are not modular
2. Option system is not really well documented
3. Some depende
Hello,
I'm not a developer and I know how it's difficult to make a port (or
some ports, for example VirtualBox) but I think the port system has many
"problems":
1. Ports are not modular
2. Option system is not really well documented
3. Some dependencies are totally useless
4. So slow...
Let
54 matches
Mail list logo
