From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 26 20:23:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB74F16A402 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:23:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from christias@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com (nz-out-0102.google.com [64.233.162.202]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD05743D46 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:23:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from christias@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 9so1402869nzo for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:23:31 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=aMkWxdNZyjl3G/UXl/+iZIPtxPHCUWVabHV3Zq4G3UA163g7FRIidDPhqsl1UuTEA4KpewD2AyJ2z1rqIt/87L/JSzzRWcLb5YS4pw9sZxr1IOEmZGC+ChKQNfnJABZy0j2TlmC/r7CXfVNDKOut5Vw9a0ENDM53IVhJ8xOukD0= Received: by 10.65.22.14 with SMTP id z14mr380577qbi; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.185.5 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:23:31 +0300 From: "Panagiotis Christias" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20060424234755.GA21411@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060424165021.GA1367@lena.kiev> <444D1BEF.5010704@computer.org> <20060424222727.GA20219@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060424234755.GA21411@xor.obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Obsolete packages X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:23:32 -0000 On 4/25/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 02:39:58AM +0300, Panagiotis Christias wrote: > > On 4/25/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:41:51PM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote: > > > > Lena@lena.kiev.ua wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > > > > > > > >A new version of a port (www/firefox) was released on April 14. > > > > > > > > > ># portversion -v firefox > > > > >firefox-1.5.0.1,1 < needs updating (port has 1.5.0.2,1) > > > > > > > > > >But packages still (on April 24) are of previous version: > > > > > > > > > >$ ftp ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/ > > > > >ftp> dir packages-5-stable/All/firefox-1* > > > > >-rw-r--r-- 1 110 0 11188636 Apr 01 16:29 > > > > >firefox-1.5.0.1_2,1.tbz > > > > >ftp> dir packages-6-stable/All/firefox-1* > > > > >-rw-r--r-- 1 110 0 11511879 Apr 02 10:21 > > > > >firefox-1.5.0.1_2,1.tbz > > > > >ftp> dir packages-7-current/All/firefox-1* > > > > >-rw-r--r-- 1 110 0 11511428 Apr 03 04:40 > > > > >firefox-1.5.0.1_2,1.tbz > > > > > > > > > >Is something broken or is there insufficient computing power for > > > > >building new packages more often? > > > > > > > > It's my understanding that packages are built "when possible". The= y > > > > often lag that which is in ports. There are only so many cycles in= a > > > > day (per cpu and per person). I would assume that there is some lo= gical > > > > order in which the packages are built (most used first? Though not = sure > > > > how that would be determined) > > > > > > I continuously rebuild packages using a method that only builds > > > "changed" packages (new, updated to new version or with a dependency > > > that was changed). This typically gives a turnaround time on i386 of > > > less than a day to several days for packages becoming available, but > > > as I said in another reply I'm not uploading them now because of the > > > looming release cycle. > > > > With no intention to criticize your way of thinking or your work, > > release cycles sometimes could take a bit more time than scheduled. > > You, the developers and maintainers, know that better than us, the > > users. In the mean time there is a whole community of (end?) users > > that could benefit from the prompt availability of latest ports in > > packages. I'm referring mostly to desktop or workstation users, since > > the most of us build our ports from the sources for our servers. > > Although, I'm eager to use the "portupgrade -P" option more often for > > our (less critical) ports. > > > > Is there a chance that you, along with the release engineering team, > > reconsider your policy? > > It's basically forced upon us by the finite bandwidth of mirror sites. > At release time they have many gigabytes of ISO images and other > install media, etc to download, without adding many gigabytes of > packages. If we don't back off from uploading packages in the lead up > to the release, then what happens is that many mirror sites are out of > date and do not carry the release media at the time of release. Well, speaking as the maintainer of the ftp.gr.freebsd.org mirror site I would say that in this case the monolithic form of the FreeBSD FTP repository is a drawback. Mirroring around 350GB/1.600.000 files, or even a subset, is a difficult (see insufficient) task. Separating the repository and the mirroring process in parts (releases, packages etc.) could be a solution.. Regards, Panagiotis