From owner-freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 2 01:06:48 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: pkg@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 952426B8 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:06:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C6AADF0 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:06:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sA216mF8005234 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:06:48 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: pkg@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 194666] pkg version lists ports needing an update but update has been applied via pkg Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 01:06:48 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports Tree X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: crum.zach@gmail.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Needs Triage X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 01:06:48 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194666 --- Comment #2 from crum.zach@gmail.com --- WITH_NEW_XORG has been defined since I installed 10.0. I understand that pkg is supposed to tell me when ports are out-of-date/stale. In this case, they are the same version. For example pkg version indicates libEGL "libEGL-9.1.7_4 <" However, when looking at freshports.org, the current version is 9.1.7_4 If I understand it correctly, pkg version should output "libEGL-9.1.7_4 =" I will happily go away, but I'll continue to scratch my head as to why the version is being marked as stale, when it's the current version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. From owner-freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 2 01:10:10 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: pkg@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E4687A5 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:10:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 052BFE1A for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:10:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sA21A9db007059 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:10:09 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: pkg@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 194666] ports-mgmt/pkg: pkg version lists ports needing an update but update has been applied via pkg Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 01:10:10 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports Tree X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: linimon@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Needs Triage X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pkg@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: assigned_to short_desc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 01:10:10 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194666 Mark Linimon changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD. |pkg@FreeBSD.org |org | Summary|pkg version lists ports |ports-mgmt/pkg: pkg version |needing an update but |lists ports needing an |update has been applied via |update but update has been |pkg |applied via pkg --- Comment #3 from Mark Linimon --- Over to maintainers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. From owner-freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 2 01:14:12 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: pkg@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BCEAAF3 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:14:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 038B6ED2 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:14:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sA21EBcg041886 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:14:11 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: pkg@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 193016] ports-mgmt/pkg: pkg upgrade does not use latest version from repo Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 01:14:12 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports Tree X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: linimon@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pkg@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: short_desc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 01:14:12 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193016 Mark Linimon changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|pkg upgrade does not use |ports-mgmt/pkg: pkg upgrade |latest version from repo |does not use latest version | |from repo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. From owner-freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 2 12:40:38 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35E03283 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:40:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.paymentallianceintl.com (mx2.paymentallianceintl.com [216.26.158.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx2.paymentallianceintl.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB1B7C8 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:40:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from firewallnew (162-230-214-65.lightspeed.lsvlky.sbcglobal.net [162.230.214.65]) by mx2.paymentallianceintl.com (8.14.5/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sA2CeT5t021478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 07:40:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mikej@mikej.com) Received: from mail.mikej.com (firewall [192.168.6.63]) by firewallnew (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sA2CeQU4015648 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 07:40:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mikej@mikej.com) X-Authentication-Warning: firewallnew: Host firewall [192.168.6.63] claimed to be mail.mikej.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 07:40:26 -0500 From: Michael Jung To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Monitoring jail swap usage from poudriere bulk Message-ID: <7125b470585003cdbb477bc611dbc866@mail.mikej.com> X-Sender: mikej@mikej.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 12:40:38 -0000 What is the best way to monitor memory swap usage of a bulk build with poudriere? I find swapinfo in .data.json in the logs, what if anything does that tell me? --mikej From owner-freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 2 21:59:28 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: pkg@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6D21B51; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 21:59:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (unknown [IPv6:2602:d1:b4d6:e600:4261:86ff:fef6:aa2a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B06A9ACF; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 21:59:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sA2M1A62087184; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 14:01:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) To: ports@freebsd.org, Jeffrey Bouquet via freebsd-ports In-Reply-To: <1414837936.42754.YahooMailBasic@web140901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1414837936.42754.YahooMailBasic@web140901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> From: "Chris H" Subject: Re: RE: reducing the size of the ports tree Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 14:01:10 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=fixed MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: pkg@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 21:59:29 -0000 On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 03:32:16 -0700 Jeffrey Bouquet via freebsd-ports wrote > Not initially welcoming this new effort... > explanation and other PKG problems taking precedence... > > > I've a few scripts which use the smaller files, and have used them > extensively in pipes. Syntax within the Makefile would make those > counterintuitive. I would wonder also if it would break port > infrastructure like the Mk and Tools and "make search" and > portsearch (etc -- ports ) ... essentially breaking more things than > would be solved. Indeed, I've many ideas for MORE small > files for people crafting shell scripts that would be of more use > down the road, and incorporated someday into additional port tools, > portmasters, portupgrades, etc... > > So as far as this particular suggestion, maybe if someone wants it > bad enough one should build a prototype and test locally several > years with many ports and upgrades to determine what it breaks... and > how to write new tools. > > But I conjecture that effort would be better spent with PR backlogs, > fixing pkg2ng (which fails here on one machine ) etc... and > making pkg more robust... (complete recovery if the database is > hosed, with a something local_sqlite_hosed_reuild_sh.sh etc etc > And the documentation. Many many more examples of everyday usage > over the course of a year and UPDATING scenarious would be > appreciated... > > > and also streamlining pkg so it works better on low power machines with > many ports installed. Including less segfaults... > > As an aside, I am now on a machine which never had the problem before, > after a failed pkg2ng conversion, > > A... pkg install -f nettle > wants to install csound! what file is telling it that? The database ??? > ... and seven others I had just deinstalled > > B... make install ( proceeds with "Child process terminated abnomally... > segmentation fault) before the install. Not known if anything was running > beforehand. Not problems with the install. But it keeps occuring... > What process? Something in the background wanting that nettle >> > csound dependency? Pkg working before the make command? Part > of the make command infrastructure now more buggy? > > Thankfully that machine is not the primary one here, and all the programs > installed still work on it as far as I know. But its registration data is > not exact and pkg-devel as installed on it could be debugged more... as > well as pkg2ng retested to work on v9 more precisely... It failed three > times to convert that machine. (not installed unless desinstalling direct > from the port, so could not upgrade.. or pkg info the port) I feel inclined to add a "me too" here. If nothing else, the proposal seems to violate POLA (not unlike pkg(8) did). Mind you, I _do_ recognize the advantages that pkg(8) brought. But [as yet] am not convinced it was (quite) time to make it _replace_ pkg(7). That said, and more to the point of this thread. I too believe it will introduce many issues for the toolsets users have built, and maintained against the current ports structure. As mentioned already; it will also _break_ many tools/utilities already available in the ports tree now. What to do then? Abandon/remove them? The requirement for sqlite3(1) that pkg(8) introduced was a poor decision IMHO. It introduces a single-point-of-failure that is generally considered bad practice for "critical" software. If something goes wrong with the database, you're up a creek, even with a backup. The introduction also broke many toolchains previously built against the largely text-based record keeping of pkg(7). Imagine if the DNS only required a single NS. What happens if that NS becomes unreachable? So it is for the sqlite3(1) requirement. What if you're an average user? You will likely have little knowledge of SQL syntax, and it will not be very helpful to them, if they need information about their ports install(s), or to manipulate things. While I've probably commented beyond the initial scope of this threads [intended] context. I think the other points I've made, also speak to the reasons I don't feel further modifications of the ports infrastructure would be welcomed, or advantageous. In this way, or at this time. Thank you for all your time, and consideration. --Chris > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 7 15:14:36 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB4472CA for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 15:14:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from st11p01mm-asmtp002.mac.com (st11p01mm-asmtp002.mac.com [17.172.204.237]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DES-CBC3-SHA (112/168 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.me.com", Issuer "VeriSign Class 3 Extended Validation SSL SGC CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B178D1B8 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 15:14:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.42] (unknown [37.82.113.179]) by st11p01mm-asmtp002.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.10(7.0.4.27.9) 64bit (built Jun 6 2014)) with ESMTPSA id <0NEO00I1NCZHVA00@st11p01mm-asmtp002.mac.com> for freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:14:34 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52,1.0.28,0.0.0000 definitions=2014-11-07_06:2014-11-07,2014-11-07,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1408290000 definitions=main-1411070122 From: =?utf-8?Q?Sebastian_J=C3=A4schke?= Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Subject: merging pkg databases Message-id: Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 16:14:00 +0100 To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1) X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:14:36 -0000 Hi! For some reason we need to merge pkg(ng) databases together, so that = only the newer packages is in the resulting database, if both merged = databases have packages of the same type. And if two packages in the = databases have even the same version, always the same database is = overwritten. The reason is that we have a ro tree which is handled = differently than the rw pathes including /usr/local. It seems to be not possible with the common tools for pkg, so our = company is willing to pay for a solution on this. How should be ask whom for this? Is one of the followers of this fine = list a freelancer, willing and able to do this job? Should we ask the = foundation itself? We are quite new on a question like this, so please advise! Thanks a lot!= From owner-freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 7 16:18:10 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87C21523 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 16:18:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp6.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1:3cd3:cd67:fafa:3d78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk", Issuer "ca.infracaninophile.co.uk" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27537B05 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 16:18:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ox-dell39.ox.adestra.com (no-reverse-dns.metronet-uk.com [85.199.232.226] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sA7GHvTo067385 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 16:18:03 GMT (envelope-from matthew@freebsd.org) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk sA7GHvTo067385 Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk/sA7GHvTo067385; dkim=none reason="no signature"; dkim-adsp=none; dkim-atps=neutral X-Authentication-Warning: lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk: Host no-reverse-dns.metronet-uk.com [85.199.232.226] (may be forged) claimed to be ox-dell39.ox.adestra.com Message-ID: <545CF0AD.9050509@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 16:17:49 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Re: merging pkg databases References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9SENMIOt6uSQP1s6jjLAuSTpisbiN9C4X" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.4 at lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 16:18:10 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --9SENMIOt6uSQP1s6jjLAuSTpisbiN9C4X Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/07/14 15:14, Sebastian J=C3=A4schke wrote: > For some reason we need to merge pkg(ng) databases together, so that > only the newer packages is in the resulting database, if both merged > databases have packages of the same type. And if two packages in the > databases have even the same version, always the same database is > overwritten. The reason is that we have a ro tree which is handled > differently than the rw pathes including /usr/local. >=20 > It seems to be not possible with the common tools for pkg, so our > company is willing to pay for a solution on this. >=20 > How should be ask whom for this? Is one of the followers of this fine > list a freelancer, willing and able to do this job? Should we ask the > foundation itself? We are quite new on a question like this, so > please advise! When you say 'ro tree' and 'rw tree' are these just chunks of the usual filesystem layout with custom permissions? New filesystem hierarchies you've invented (which implies custom package builds with variant $PREFIX / $LOCALBASE) or else some more complex system using overlays? If it's the first option, and maybe for the other two options, then a fairly quick solution is to dump out the lists of packages you want installed (i.e. the ones not set to autoremove) # pkg query -e '%a =3D 0' '%n-%v' > pkg-list1 Do that for both of your pkg databases, and then merge the two lists, removing any duplicates: # cat pkg-list1 pkg-list2 | sort -u > pkg-list You'll need to check pkg-list manually for any duplicated packages with different versions, and choose which one (usually the most recent) you want installed. Delete any unwanted duplicates from the list. Then on a test box -- just a normally setup FreeBSD machine, with no special permissions settings -- install the edited list of packages: # xargs pkg install < pkg-list Now compare the set of files installed on the test machine with what is on the original machine with the ro and rw filesystems. Delete any packages on the original system not present on the new one, and install any that are missing -- you'll probably want to do some testing at this point to make sure you've got the right functionality still working. The idea is to end up with an identical package load on both systems. Now you should be able to simply copy /var/db/local.sqlite from the test box to your original server. Does that make sense to you? Cheers, Matthew --9SENMIOt6uSQP1s6jjLAuSTpisbiN9C4X Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJUXPC1XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxOUYxNTRFQ0JGMTEyRTUwNTQ0RTNGMzAw MDUxM0YxMEUwQTlFNEU3AAoJEABRPxDgqeTnETgP/j7Bs1M1owqmDNpXTjtjIVG7 yKGeibt8xgZTLbZtGfj5PsERyZPPqPKI3wIgp7RDJacyLVC8otX8hxoXhfJ5Z7Us Y042faW+vqMIIWkT/+9Qneo29wPkcRfVWk5V17eOtp3jlhmZfnPJ/CaFG3QQ5zTi 0SJEYmBSvIk63KNxgAUDCVTz2lEYm9i+QI2wKuQNjA/lTBAQ1XjrbnRYK0fJew/B keZQvsbgDmJbEnrTJbxIi9pglgFJHv0/+MJG4kAbLRNr3/Ktxi2zI5Tj1SGnszio i5QSBismC5Hv07PXs0hiuTJlwm7vqfggDbGU5wuAWt5UHtv3cvvMcAVB2r/5raam dNn+07kBbE+SWOWIUcyGKBLcUGkTFc1hmGW0ve/3IJeIr8/5zWZf+I6y8T093JOQ XNudAs714gcTdHrA8Na8axJ32zO500ZJbPAU9HnPVmAbJ2nY87u3Hr0PY0UQBrSk vAAa7eEjnU/JtSAmzCVIScz/ZDVJVk4B0H1rjchXrsZ630cDZnmL046XPTBV7iBo DkMRjmqAJMlfOH6T79rXy0KuhUSY3sUx3aG7BrhG5J7wew9lK64ycw1zdSgA1SFG S5VHd4HcRAd5v/240QmEG25BWYkPNIsmHaNA318yEbFawoVK0y8sO4Ox+yf2ytnH wQhlf/hCFJYWfsG7lWBv =FPb/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9SENMIOt6uSQP1s6jjLAuSTpisbiN9C4X-- From owner-freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 7 17:51:53 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D47B7F73; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:51:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from st11p01mm-asmtp002.mac.com (st11p01mm-asmtp002.mac.com [17.172.204.237]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DES-CBC3-SHA (112/168 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.me.com", Issuer "VeriSign Class 3 Extended Validation SSL SGC CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8D6A6ED; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:51:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.42] (unknown [37.82.113.179]) by st11p01mm-asmtp002.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.10(7.0.4.27.9) 64bit (built Jun 6 2014)) with ESMTPSA id <0NEO0041KKADJ710@st11p01mm-asmtp002.mac.com>; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 17:51:52 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52,1.0.28,0.0.0000 definitions=2014-11-07_08:2014-11-07,2014-11-07,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1408290000 definitions=main-1411070147 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\)) Subject: Re: merging pkg databases From: =?utf-8?Q?Sebastian_J=C3=A4schke?= In-reply-to: <545CF0AD.9050509@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 18:51:49 +0100 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: <54C374D4-7AF9-4BAF-854A-69FAA22DB229@mac.com> References: <545CF0AD.9050509@freebsd.org> To: Matthew Seaman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1) Cc: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 17:51:53 -0000 Am 07.11.2014 um 17:17 schrieb Matthew Seaman : >=20 > On 11/07/14 15:14, Sebastian J=C3=A4schke wrote: >> For some reason we need to merge pkg(ng) databases together, so that >> only the newer packages is in the resulting database, if both merged >> databases have packages of the same type. And if two packages in the >> databases have even the same version, always the same database is >> overwritten. The reason is that we have a ro tree which is handled >> differently than the rw pathes including /usr/local. >>=20 >> It seems to be not possible with the common tools for pkg, so our >> company is willing to pay for a solution on this. >>=20 >> How should be ask whom for this? Is one of the followers of this fine >> list a freelancer, willing and able to do this job? Should we ask the >> foundation itself? We are quite new on a question like this, so >> please advise! >=20 > When you say 'ro tree' and 'rw tree' are these just chunks of the = usual > filesystem layout with custom permissions? New filesystem hierarchies > you've invented (which implies custom package builds with variant > $PREFIX / $LOCALBASE) or else some more complex system using overlays? Within the ro tree (e.g. /usr/roports) there are only Packages build = from the ports to get the pathes work. All of these packages do NOT need anything below /usr/local and are managed with this prefix. PATH etc (e.g. LOCALBASE) in the machine is aware of this and tries to = use these ro files as long as they exist (e.g. libs) when one wants to build = something from source or ports. PREFIX for the user is /usr/local. So it doesn=E2=80=99t matter if he = uses pkg or ports, he can write it. Your idea below is quite nice, but as some pkgs are located under = /usr/roports and some under /usr/local, the resulting pkg database should be aware of = the real location of the files where the latest version of a package is = installed. Recreating the database again on a fresh machine is smart, but it would = fail about this. On the other hand this structure is installed in a big buch of machines, = all with different installations under /usr/local - so it would be quite painfull = to sort it by hand for each single machine :( Is there something else you can see? Or is it even you who could do a = freelancing job about this? :) thanks in any case! Sebastian > If it's the first option, and maybe for the other two options, then a > fairly quick solution is to dump out the lists of packages you want > installed (i.e. the ones not set to autoremove) >=20 > # pkg query -e '%a =3D 0' '%n-%v' > pkg-list1 >=20 > Do that for both of your pkg databases, and then merge the two lists, > removing any duplicates: >=20 > # cat pkg-list1 pkg-list2 | sort -u > pkg-list >=20 > You'll need to check pkg-list manually for any duplicated packages = with > different versions, and choose which one (usually the most recent) you > want installed. Delete any unwanted duplicates from the list. >=20 > Then on a test box -- just a normally setup FreeBSD machine, with no > special permissions settings -- install the edited list of packages: >=20 > # xargs pkg install < pkg-list >=20 > Now compare the set of files installed on the test machine with what = is > on the original machine with the ro and rw filesystems. Delete any > packages on the original system not present on the new one, and = install > any that are missing -- you'll probably want to do some testing at = this > point to make sure you've got the right functionality still working. = The > idea is to end up with an identical package load on both systems. >=20 > Now you should be able to simply copy /var/db/local.sqlite from the = test > box to your original server. >=20 > Does that make sense to you? >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Matthew >=20 >=20