Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:29:12 +0000 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Manish Jain <invalid.pointer@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Questions on portmaster Message-ID: <d873d5be0907012329k1dbc5adcjaec8c45529f84e45@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4A4C4057.5010209@gmail.com> References: <d873d5be0907011609v5bd32863y8fe1b65ac72fe7e0@mail.gmail.com> <4A4C4057.5010209@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/2/09, Manish Jain <invalid.pointer@gmail.com> wrote:
> b. f. wrote:
>> Manish Jain wrote:
> Regarding the download speeds I was getting with portmaster fetches (0.7
> kBps to 4.0 kBps), I immediately booted into Windows/Cygwin and did a
> wget from the same site portmaster was using. The speed I got from wget
> was ~ 35 kBps. This happened not just once but multiple times. Each time
> I did this, I had to interrupt portmaster. Finally I managed to get to
> install the wget port on FreeBSD itself. When I ran wget from FreeBSD,
> it reported comparable transfer rates (~ 35 kBps) from the same sites as
> portmaster was using.
>
This has nothing to do with portmaster. Remember, portmaster is just
a (sometimes) convenient shell script wrapper for the normal ports
infrastructure. What you're probably seeing is either the usual
fluctuations in network performance, or the difference between wget
and FreeBSD fetch(1), which by default is used for getting distfiles
and packages. This is set in bsd.port.mk, and you can override it if
you prefer to use something else. See the comments concerning
FETCH_BINARY, FETCH_ARGS, FETCH_CMD, FETCH_{BEFORE,AFTER}_ARGS,
FETCH_ENV, and FETCH_REGET at the top of bsd.port.mk, or the relevant
portion of that script. You can also try tuning your network
settings, which can speed things up significantly in some cases.
>>> It respects IGNORE (it checks for it in the port Makefile, and also
>>> hands off to bsd.port.mk, which respects it).
>
> I got a curl port from portsnap marked IGNORE. portmaster did not ignore
> it anywhere near gracefully enough and finally killed off all child
> processes and itself.
>
Uh, yeah -- but that's another matter. It did IGNORE it, but it just
stopped entirely. This is another one of the things that need
improvement. portupgrade, by contrast, will keep going, only ignoring
the port in question and any ports that depend upon it, but updating
the rest. You should be able to patch portmaster to mimic this
behavior.
> Anyway, my system became so unpredictable that I had to reinstall
> FreeBSD. For the moment, I am avoiding portmaster till I can try it out
> on a dummy PC first.
>
Well, something is awry if your system was damaged that badly, and it
probably wasn't because of portmaster. In general, few ports ought to
damage the base system. You're probably better off trying to remove
and then reinstall all of your ports first (the instructions in the
portmaster manpage are good in this regard), before reinstalling
everything.
> BTW, I also tried portmanager and it segfaulted at the stage of
> generating a report.
>
Oh, well. Sounds like a job for .... rnoland@FreeBSD.org. But wait --
who wants to bother him about some tiny piece of port management
software when he is heroically staging a single-handed campaign to
maintain X11 on FreeBSD?
b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d873d5be0907012329k1dbc5adcjaec8c45529f84e45>