On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:32:55 -0800 (PST)
Tim Clewlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also I have the following options on in /etc/make.conf.
> CFLAGS= -O -pipe# Optimize general builds
> COPTFLAGS= -O -pipe # Optimize kernel builds
I would suggest you remove these since they are
--- Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13/12/2007, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just wonder if you asked the general population, whether they'd rather
> > have ports or packages, I bet most would vote for packages, aside from
> > those that actually like watching the compilation outp
On 13/12/2007, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just wonder if you asked the general population, whether they'd rather
> have ports or packages, I bet most would vote for packages, aside from
> those that actually like watching the compilation output fly by.
I do like to watch it but in additi
On Saturday 15 December 2007 01:25:11 pm David Southwell wrote:
> My intention is not to offend but to draw attention to the need to remain on
> topic and not to argue ad personam.
On Sunday 16 December 2007 03:33:55 am David Southwell wrote:
> Good of you to post the information however undeser
On Saturday 15 December 2007 13:28:40 Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> > you do not maintain any ports
>
> Incorrect I have one that is currently officially pending in the
> backlog created by the freeze (the PR is sitting their waiting).
> Also as soon that port is done and any errors I may of made as i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Linimon wrote:
>> Side note the more we discuss this the more obvious it becomes to me
>> it has to be in some OO lang and since C++ is the only one in the base
>> system it kind of forces C++ to be the implementation lang.
>
> You may want to tak
> Side note the more we discuss this the more obvious it becomes to me
> it has to be in some OO lang and since C++ is the only one in the base
> system it kind of forces C++ to be the implementation lang.
You may want to take a look at some of the work OpenBSD has done
recently; I believe they ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> you do not maintain any ports
Incorrect I have one that is currently officially pending in the
backlog created by the freeze (the PR is sitting their waiting).
Also as soon that port is done and any errors I may of made as it
being my first port I
Frank J. Laszlo wrote:
I rarely post on -ports anymore, due to the lack of order and respect
for those who actually DO SOMETHING, and not just bitch and moan about
things that should be done.
Let me also make another point related to this sentence. While
obviously there should be respect fo
Frank J. Laszlo wrote:
I rarely post on -ports anymore, due to the lack of order and respect
for those who actually DO SOMETHING, and not just bitch and moan about
things that should be done.
I remember it was only a few short years ago that ports@ was completely
inundated by receiving every
On Saturday 15 December 2007 10:41:14 Frank J. Laszlo wrote:
> David Southwell wrote:
> > And get this
> >
> > I have been around the computer world using *nix long before freebsd came
> > along. That does not mean what I say today deserves to be judged other
> > than on its face value. However wha
David Southwell wrote:
And get this
I have been around the computer world using *nix long before freebsd came
along. That does not mean what I say today deserves to be judged other than
on its face value. However what over 40 years in IT has encouraged me to
think that those who invite peopl
On Saturday 15 December 2007 08:04:31 Frank J. Laszlo wrote:
> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> > Your correct that there are 2 seperate issues at play here but there
> > is a common solution (and to be honest I have yet to see any
> > feature/issue discussed in any of the re-engineering threads that
> >
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Your correct that there are 2 seperate issues at play here but there
is a common solution (and to be honest I have yet to see any
feature/issue discussed in any of the re-engineering threads that
doesn't at least become more manageable under this general design
concept I
On Friday 14 December 2007 14:20:24 Remko Lodder wrote:
> David Southwell wrote:
> > On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
> >> --On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
> >>
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
> >>>
> >>> "Aryeh M. Frie
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:34:06PM -0500, Yoshihiro Ota wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:58:57 +0100
> Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One shortcoming is the lack of locking making parallell builds a bit unsafe.
> > If you try to build both port A and port B at the same time, and bot
On Friday 14 December 2007 18:44:09 Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On December 14, 2007 5:21:02 PM -0800 Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Information does indeed need to be gathered, and while even the ports
> > list will only grab a small percentage of FreeBSD users, other options
> > would likely gr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yoshihiro Ota wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:58:57 +0100 Erik Trulsson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> One shortcoming is the lack of locking making parallell builds a
>> bit unsafe. If you try to build both port A and port B at the
>> same time, an
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:58:57 +0100
Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One shortcoming is the lack of locking making parallell builds a bit unsafe.
> If you try to build both port A and port B at the same time, and both A and
> B depends (directly or indirectly) on port C which is not insta
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On December 14, 2007 5:21:02 PM -0800 Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Information does indeed need to be gathered, and while even the ports
list will only grab a small percentage of FreeBSD users, other options
would likely grab a lot less. Plus, most of the users here a
--On December 14, 2007 7:51:14 PM -0500 Garance A Drosehn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:08 AM -0600 12/14/07, Paul Schmehl wrote:
SInce I've already killfiled Aryeh,
I guess we should all killfile you, too.
Be my guest.
Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Senior Information Security Anal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It is too bad I am in your killfile because you will not get this ;-)
>
> Yet the proponents of the Aryeh bandwagon keep throwing up this
> straw man that those of us who have tired of the useless back and
> forth are refusing to listen and uninteres
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:51:14PM -0500, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> At 10:08 AM -0600 12/14/07, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> >
> >SInce I've already killfiled Aryeh,
>
> I guess we should all killfile you, too.
Can we please just stop the meta-thread now and go back to working on all
the myriad things
--On December 14, 2007 5:21:02 PM -0800 Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Information does indeed need to be gathered, and while even the ports
list will only grab a small percentage of FreeBSD users, other options
would likely grab a lot less. Plus, most of the users here are
knowledgeable enou
At 10:08 AM -0600 12/14/07, Paul Schmehl wrote:
SInce I've already killfiled Aryeh,
I guess we should all killfile you, too.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
That is a little unfair IMHO - Aryeh has to gather information from
those who use the current system, and @ports is clearly the place for
that! Now he may listen to all, some or none of the points of view he
receives... and that may well determine the success or otherwise
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Skip Ford wrote:
>> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>>
>>> Developing in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster we are
>>> making fairly good progress believe it or not I only see an
>>> other 1 or 2 threads being needed before actual co
Skip Ford wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Developing in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster we are making
fairly good progress believe it or not I only see an other 1 or 2
threads being needed before actual coding starts, *BUT* producing a
system no one wants is pointless thus it is wise to
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Remko Lodder wrote:
You Simply dont understand the way it works here and I can
understand that till a certain point of view; take the advise;
discuss it elsewhere, and get back with working code (yeah I repeat
it twice bec
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> Developing in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster we are making
> fairly good progress believe it or not I only see an other 1 or 2
> threads being needed before actual coding starts, *BUT* producing a
> system no one wants is pointless thus it is wise to gather as much
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> 1. Make plan. 2. Ask limited group for sanity check. 3. Code, code
> code. Go back to 2. if necessary. Continue to 4. when "done". 4.
> Ask larger group for sanity check and testing. Go back to 3. if
> necessary. Continue to 5. when "done". 5. Relea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Skip Ford wrote:
> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>> Developing in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster we are making
>> fairly good progress believe it or not I only see an other 1 or
>> 2 threads being needed before actual coding starts, *BUT*
>> produci
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Remko Lodder wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Remko Lodder wrote:
David Southwell wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 +
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Remko Lodder wrote:
> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>> Remko Lodder wrote:
>>> David Southwell wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> Remko Lodder wrote:
>> David Southwell wrote:
>>> On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
>
> "Aryeh M. Friedman" <[
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Remko Lodder wrote:
> David Southwell wrote:
>> On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
>>> --On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
>>>
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
"Aryeh M.
David Southwell wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
>> --On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
>>>
>>> "Aryeh M. Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Namely if I build abc with options
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Skip Ford wrote:
> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>> RW wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500 "Aryeh M. Friedman"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and def with
345 and 678 then 345 will be ca
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> RW wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500 "Aryeh M. Friedman"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and def with 345
>>> and 678 then 345 will be cached for def since we already set it
>>> for abc.
>>
>> How do you know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500 "Aryeh M. Friedman"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and def
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
RW wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500 "Aryeh M. Friedman"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and def with 345
>> and 678 then 345 will be cached for def since we already set it
>> for abc.
>
> How
On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
> >
> > "Aryeh M. Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and
> >> def wi
--On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 + RW
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
"Aryeh M. Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and
def with 345 and 678 then 345 will be cached for def since we already
set it for abc
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
"Aryeh M. Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and
> def with 345 and 678 then 345 will be cached for def since we already
> set it for abc.
How do you know the user wants 345 set on both ports?
It might be a use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Dawson wrote:
> On Friday 14 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I was not planning to skimp on the requirements at all but the test
>> case is xorg.
>
> A far better test case, IMHO, would be to run a similar build to the
pointyhat
> cluster if
On Friday 14 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I was not planning to skimp on the requirements at all but the test
> case is xorg.
A far better test case, IMHO, would be to run a similar build to the pointyhat
cluster if you're serious about *replacing* the ports system. Unless a new
system c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Danny Pansters wrote:
> On Thursday 13 December 2007 19:17:34 Warren Block wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
>>> This thread was called "results of ports re-engineering survey" but I
>>> figured I would start a new thread.
>> Rightly
On Thursday 13 December 2007 19:17:34 Warren Block wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
> > This thread was called "results of ports re-engineering survey" but I
> > figured I would start a new thread.
>
> Rightly so.
>
> > On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
> >> We *know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Birrell wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 05:36:07PM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>> I was not planning to skimp on the requirements at all but the
>> test case is xorg... i.e. I will do my best to not compermise on
>> features/requirements but
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 05:36:07PM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> I was not planning to skimp on the requirements at all but the test
> case is xorg... i.e. I will do my best to not compermise on
> features/requirements but xorg meets several criteria for being a good
> test (out of order buildi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Birrell wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:00:54PM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>> That is why I plan to use xorg as the test case for the new system
>> namely if it builds xorg in the most efficent way possible then it
>> will be consider
I just wonder if you asked the general population, whether they'd rather
have ports or packages, I bet most would vote for packages, aside from
those that actually like watching the compilation output fly by.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:00:54PM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> That is why I plan to use xorg as the test case for the new system
> namely if it builds xorg in the most efficent way possible then it
> will be considered good enough for release
You need to pick a much more complicated set
Steven Kreuzer wrote:
This thread was called "results of ports re-engineering survey" but I
figured I would start a new thread.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limits of the
current system, and most of us are completely
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:42:43AM -0500, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
> This thread was called "results of ports re-engineering survey" but I
> figured I would start a new thread.
>
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
>>
>>
>> We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limit
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:17:34AM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
>
>> This thread was called "results of ports re-engineering survey" but I
>> figured I would start a new thread.
>
> Rightly so.
>
>> On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
>>> We
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Warren Block wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
>>
>>> This thread was called "results of ports re-engineering survey"
>>> but I figured I would start a new thread.
>>
>> Righ
On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Warren Block wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
This thread was called "results of ports re-engineering survey"
but I figured I would start a new thread.
Rightly so.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
We *know* it can be done bette
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steven Kreuzer wrote:
> This thread was called "results of ports re-engineering survey" but
> I figured I would start a new thread.
>
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
>>
>>
>> We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling lim
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
This thread was called "results of ports re-engineering survey" but I figured
I would start a new thread.
Rightly so.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limits of the
current sys
60 matches
Mail list logo
