| raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 16:52:59 +0900
Tatsuki Makino <tatsuki_makino@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmm,
>
> I have never used poudriere to create all the packages.
> However, since I was using the STABLE version for my jail, I have lost all the packages I have built on several occasions.
>
> It seems to happen when the value returned by the uname -KU of the jail changes.
>
> It seems that poudriere-pkgclean is the only other way to get rid of packages that can no longer be traced from the port tree.
>
> If the package directory is not cleaned of unnecessary packages, poudriere-bulk creates a repository that also contains the packages.
> In fact, my poudriere repository includes llvm70-7.0.1_8.pkg and seamonkey-2.49.4_27.pkg.
> Also, if the package name is the same but the version is different, it seems to be a repository that has no problem providing it.
>
> I have such a rule of thumb :)
With my experience, poudriere deletes all the packages in its local
repo for the jail when
1.ABI changed (i.e., 13 to 14, i386 to amd64),
2.__FreeBSD_version is bumped in src/sys/sys/param.h,
3.Any of TYPE, REVISION and/or BRANCH in src/sys/conf/newvers.sh
are bumped.
if `-a` is specified for all still lives in ports rtree.
Each of them affects `uname -KU`.
And possibly, not sure actually which is, something in toolchains are
changed (not all changes affects).
I think poudriere would be better ignoring last 3 (at least 2) digits
of __FreeBSD_version for stable, releng and release branches, as
API/KPI (not ABI/KBI, unfortunately) are basically assured to be
downward compatible within each of those branches.
FYI:
I have a small script to list all pakcages installed, excluding
*ports marked as deleted (no successor specified) in MOVED.
*ports origin (can specify flavor) to igonore listed in BLOCKLIST
variable in the script
at brew.bsd.cafe repo [1].
With the list generated by the script, you can ignore huge LEAVES like
www/chromium to be ignored to build. See the README.md there for
details.
[1]
https://brew.bsd.cafe/TomAoki/sh_scripts/src/branch/main/poudlist-all
Regards.
>
> Regards.
>
> Yuri wrote on 2024/06/09 12:30:
> > You are right. Package DB contains both py39- and py311- packages:
> > $ pkg search py311- | wc
> > 4477 33240 346412
> > $ pkg search py39- | wc
> > 3506 25946 270059
> > Since pkg has no awareness of the current python version - it attempts to install all found candidates for each particular PKGORIGIN.
> > Anybody knows what caused this regression in the package database?
--
Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?>