Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:09:51 -0800 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: Jamie Landeg-Jones <jamie@catflap.org> Cc: Dewayne Geraghty <dewaynegeraghty@gmail.com>, Rozhuk Ivan <rozhuk.im@gmail.com>, "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>, aryehfriedman@gmail.com Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes] Message-ID: <9374651A-B5E2-4522-88C0-1E9A3F65E4EA@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <202402201313.41KDD6G2013501@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> References: <87B38D6C-1D83-4158-B03B-F4C8EA396DD1.ref@yahoo.com> <87B38D6C-1D83-4158-B03B-F4C8EA396DD1@yahoo.com> <20240219104333.6ecff336@rimwks.local> <8C4AB1AF-139D-4144-867C-6AD1AE1E1307@yahoo.com> <CAGnMC6qkzYTXTEsV1xy=YRtg8_=-SXzO92E2W%2B6J1vtxOCpCGQ@mail.gmail.com> <7B21AFF0-E0D5-4836-8486-F812E79152DF@yahoo.com> <202402201313.41KDD6G2013501@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 20, 2024, at 05:13, Jamie Landeg-Jones <jamie@catflap.org> wrote: > Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> It probably should be separate from this topic, but I'd interested >> to understand some example types of changes folks make for which >> poudriere prevents the changes from working but for which portmaster >> use or make use allows the change to work. > > I've many changes, nothing that would upset poudriere though. > > I've probably grasped the wrong ideas from this thread. I thought it was > about the implied effective deprecation of the ports infrastructure for > a binary package only structure, with poudriere being used to create > custom packages in any way it wants going forward. Please do not confuse the original thread's overall range of points with this more technical subthread. I've been limiting myself to the subthread's subject area as best I can. Given that focus, . . . To my knowledge, poudriere is a user of the ports and pkg infrastructures (that both exist independent of poudriere), never the other way around. In that it is like portmaster: layered on top without invalidating the infrastructures below. This also makes poudriere just one of multiple alternatives. I've not suggested eliminating any of them. > If pordriere continues to build via the make system we have already, > then I can't see any issue. Various folks want to avoid how much ends up being rebuilt and how much activity it takes to have the clean-context building activity poudriere has, and so they avoid the extra time spent building that way and prefer to more manually manage such. The clean-context building makes getting ports to build (into packages) easier. This means an effort/time/testing tradeoff exists for some ports that can fail when built/installed outside such a clean-context. Some volunteer activity will choose to stop at the "works when built in a clean context" level of support. In my view it is not reasonable to blame poudriere for this specific issue. (It is not the only form of the issue but I'm applying that the limited focus here.) (I've not tried synth but it may well count as another clean-context type of builder layered on top of the ports and pkg infrastructures. It may have different overheads. I've not checked what platforms it supports these days.) > What's the reasoning behind people claiming a shift from "make install" > to poudriere is necessary? > Probably just that various ports periodically run into some example of failing to build when attempted without a clean-context type of build but that do build in a clean-context --mixed other context that results in the support stoping at the "works when built in a clean context" level of support. (Some of that stopping is not just individual volunteer choices. But this gets well outside my note's focus.) === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9374651A-B5E2-4522-88C0-1E9A3F65E4EA>