Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 03 Feb 2004 19:05:59 -0700
From:      Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
To:        Melvyn Sopacua <freebsd-questions@webteckies.org>
Cc:        Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject:   Re: 4 CD ISOs for 5.2 ?
Message-ID:  <40205387.2040906@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <200402040252.18639.freebsd-questions@webteckies.org>
References:  <016f01c3ea33$182e1210$1b01a8c0@itg.ti.com> <20040203213646.GB9261@xor.obsecurity.org> <40201EA3.2040106@freebsd.org> <200402040252.18639.freebsd-questions@webteckies.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2004 23:20, Scott Long wrote:
> 
>>Kris Kennaway wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 04:52:14PM +0100, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tuesday 03 February 2004 13:41, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Only the first 2 CDs are made available on the FTP site.  The other
>>>>>two contain a subset of packages; the full set of packages is
>>>>>available on the FTP site, just not in ISO format.
>>>>
>>>>Regarding the first cd:
>>>>make release
>>>>only creates a 'mini-install', not the 600M iso that is on the site. This
>>>>one misses perl for one and some dependencies fail.
>>>
>>>AFAIK packages are included by hand.
>>
>>Correct.  We've talked about enhancing the scripts so that this gets
>>included automatically, but it can be problematic since the source
>>location of the packages might be unknown at the time of the build.
> 
> 
> Do you mean the distfiles here, or the resulting packages?
> If talking about the packages, isn't it as simple as moving the 
> $CHROOT_DIR/usr/ports/packages into $CHROOT_DIR/R/cdrom and using a similar 
> approach as portupgrade? Otherwise an ls */*/*.tbz should print a workable 
> list.
> 
> If the distfiles, then one can advise in the release manpage, to do:
> /usr/src/release/scripts/print-cdrom-packages.sh 1 | xargs portinstall 
> --fetch-only
> 
> and then proceed with RELEASEDISTFILES argument.
> 

The only problem with this is that it's quite common during the RC and
BETA phases for the package set to not yet be available through normal
means.

> Life would be a lot simpler if portupgrade was moved into base :)
> 

Yeah, but that would require putting Ruby into the base, and you'd have
an all-out revolt on your hands if that happened.

Scott



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40205387.2040906>