From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Dec 5 13:37: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D7F37B401 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:37:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from kestrel.alerce.com (kestrel.alerce.com [209.182.219.40]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2222943EB2 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:37:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hartzell@kestrel.alerce.com) Received: from rosebud.alerce.com (rosebud.lbl.gov [131.243.193.115]) (authenticated bits=0) by kestrel.alerce.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id gB5Lb0r4055835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:37:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hartzell@kestrel.alerce.com) X-Authentication-Warning: kestrel.alerce.com: Host rosebud.lbl.gov [131.243.193.115] claimed to be rosebud.alerce.com Received: from rosebud.alerce.com (rosebud.alerce.com [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=128) by rosebud.alerce.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gB5LZFt2020499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:35:15 -0800 Received: (from hartzell@localhost) by rosebud.alerce.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id gB5LZEmJ020496; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:35:14 -0800 From: George Hartzell MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15855.50834.811514.388015@rosebud.alerce.com> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:35:14 -0800 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: NFS mounting the ports tree. X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 5) "Civil Service" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: hartzell@kestrel.alerce.com (George Hartzell) Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I have a group of machines, one that is big and powerful, and others which are lighter weight. I'd like to maintain a central repository of stuff on the big machine and let the littler guys take advantage of it. Everything is currently FreeBSD 4.7p2. I have successfully mounted /usr/src and /usr/obj onto the client and used "make installkernel KERNCONF=FOOBAR" and "make installworld" w/ mergemaster to update the lighter weight machines. I want to track the ports tree. If anyone out there is living this way, I'd love to hear how you do it. I have a few points of confusion in my stumbling around: 1) I found the section of the freebsd handbook that explains how to set up the distfiles directory and the workdirectory. This still seems to require that the client actually build the thing, which is what I'm trying to avoid. (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/small-lan.html) 2) I've tried just mounting /usr/ports, cd'ing into the directory of interest, and doing a "make install". This fails quickly, since the INSTALLCOOKIE is there. Doing a "make deinstall" then a "make install" works for simple ports, but sometimes causes recompilation. 3) Metaports really break the approach described in 2) above. "make deinstall" predictably enough doesn't do much. "make deinstall-dependencies" seems to work, but some things seem to end up being recompiled even though everythings all ready to go. And sometimes the deinstall seems to do more than just remove the cookies, but actually rips out something that's already there. And sometimes there are dependencies which don't seem to be supported. For example, the gnome2 metaport wants freetype, which in turn needs gmake. And someone somewhere else in the metaport (didn't write the details down) needed unzip. It's not clear to me if these are bugs in the dependency lists for the gnome2 metaport or if it's caused by the broken thing I'm trying to do. The best alternative that I've found seems to be to have the server build packages from the ports, put them in a common place, and install from there. Is this what people are doing? Does it work right in the context of metaports (e.g. do the ports recursively make packages?, do they get the dependencies correct)? [Some of these I can beat on empirically] Is it possible for the server to build and package a port that it wants to share out, w/out actually installing it itself? I've had trouble trying to do a "make package" when I've already done a "make install". It shows the same behaviour that I get when I repeat a "make install". Are "package" and "install" mutually exclusive? g. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message