From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 6 22:20:16 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A01C106564A for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 22:20:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from raj@csub.edu) Received: from mh0.csub.edu (mh0.csub.edu [136.168.1.94]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5AE8FC13 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 22:20:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [136.168.65.65] (strider.csub.edu [136.168.65.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by mh0.csub.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o36MKFBh000502 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:20:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from raj@csub.edu) Message-ID: <4BBBB3BB.5050904@csub.edu> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:20:43 -0700 From: Russell Jackson Organization: California State University, Bakersfield User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <4BBB9C2B.4070804@csub.edu> <4BBBB14C.5030101@foster.cc> In-Reply-To: <4BBBB14C.5030101@foster.cc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: sysutils/puppet: disabling freebsd ports package provider X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 22:20:16 -0000 On 04/06/2010 03:10 PM, Mark Foster wrote: > On 04/06/2010 01:40 PM, Russell Jackson wrote: >> Is there any objection to the ports provider being disabled on FreeBSD >> systems since it mostly just causes puppet to hang anyway? I've had no >> luck in fixing it. The problem is that portupgrade and script don't >> interact well when running non-interactively. >> >> I've been running it this way in a local port, and I'm thinking of >> disabling it in the official port as well. I'd post a patch for >> upstream as well. If there are no objections, I'll submit a PR for the >> change by the end of the week. >> > > Has this broken behavior been confirmed by anyone else? > I'd like to see the ports provider fixed, if possible. Is portmaster a > more suitable back-end? > I think most people, including myself, use the pkg_* provider with a local package repository. I can't imagine anyone would suffer using the ports provider in its current state. I kept running into hung puppetd processes because portupgrade somehow got installed and automatically caused the ports provider to be used instead; hence, the permanent disablement. I haven't looked into using portmaster. Might be worthwhile. -- Russell A. Jackson Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield