From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 8 12:32:05 2009 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 61E20106566B for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:32:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oren.almog@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vw0-f194.google.com (mail-vw0-f194.google.com [209.85.212.194]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B588FC16 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:32:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws32 with SMTP id 32so1340383vws.8 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:32:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=X56su/R3QtT0RiNnwp5mDmiUD7kakOqwjI94rdMHsa4=; b=nv20rsvwyKupvGRg+/6zJfg8Ef/MyXz7zyTFwNSDQvmMnVohi+Zj86JJUTjbWQdFV8 KCjXxkAAh9CaIHtDFWSbTukna6HqUGSjfwrAx+CqhvV+2ZhtviwaOdlcAW03B4eMsGz0 ypJWGZCKtkSOQHf8ha1ABeBOUQTnfTMxaE8pY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=UtwvsKiHw80nOlNF8SWpaNEr4vVLvtWyYM+LL1AM+qYzI0KUVF1O7AGaFExbNRvSPv OysGuzCprzvG/sAM8OMo4yEMvZpjPL+EKhoF4aEcykOBHbRMw3J37YguO4IzCygWuz7r JUNaJTuwYbbAn52HdplH5Hj099z5qkmLvgjHY= Received: by 10.220.123.219 with SMTP id q27mr9348160vcr.5.1260274193851; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:09:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.2? ([201.250.88.149]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm14118410vws.6.2009.12.08.04.09.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:09:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B1E4351.2030004@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:15:13 -0300 From: oren.almog@gmail.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091130 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Pointyhat packages 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, 08 Dec 2009 12:32:05 -0000 Hello, I understand that there are many who are not really interested in binary packages and are much more happy compiling everything from source but for me this is not a viable option, especially with large ports such as kde, gnome, openoffice etc... For the last couple of days I have been following the pointyhat build statistics provided at http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/packagestats.html I was trying to understand how often should I expect updated packages for 386-8-stable to hit the ftp sites. As seen on that page, the building process started on Dec 3rd but had not been completed yet. I've been keeping up a rough completion status by following the "not yet built" number however, that number is standing at 889 for almost 24 hours now while the status of the building process is still reported as running (as I am writing this, I just noticed that it is now marked as Not Running but the same applies to the i386-7 build which has been stuck at 867 Not Yet Built for roughly the same amount of time). As I was watching the building stats for i386-8-stable, a build started for amd64-8 that was completed in about 24 hours (I am monitoring this page manually so times are not exact but are a fair estimate). Why is there such a large difference between the build times on amd64 and i386? Are the i386 machines really that underpowered? Next I found this page which keeps track on the upload status of packages to the various ftp sites http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portsuploadstatus.py If the statistics on that page are correct then it seems to me that there is a lot of inefficiency in the build and upload process. Some sites are rarely updated and some poinyhat build runs are never uploaded. Take a look for example at the status of amd64-7 and amd64-8 packages: updated packages were compiled in the last few days (7) and a couple of hours ago (8) but it does not reflect at the ftp sites. Again, I realize that for the majority binary packages are not a high priority and that the main purpose of pointyhat is to check for errors in the ports tree. I am also certainly no expert in this and I am learning as I go. It's possible that I am misinterpreting the data I am seeing. I simply want to make sense of all this and understand how it all fits together (and save some compiling time...). Oren