Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:41:34 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: yuri@rawbw.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why there are so many binary packages missing? Message-ID: <4B157F7E.8050601@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4B1572D7.60700@rawbw.com> References: <4B1572D7.60700@rawbw.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigC84AAF456B0C7654CA7F601D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yuri wrote:
> I am seeing this for a long time. If I use 'portupgrade -aPP' (packages=
=20
> only) there is a very large percentage of packages missing.
> Upgrading becomes many times faster when binary packages available are =
> available.
Missing binary packages are due in the main to three reasons:
* Restrictive licensing terms
* Ports that through bugs, or otherwise, fail to successfully generate=
a binary package. Some ports (eg. sysutils/screen up until about 2
months ago (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/sysutils/scr=
een/Makefile.diff?r1=3D1.77;r2=3D1.78))
just won't package successfully, even if they build, install and run=
perfectly well.
* The port has a dependency on another port that failed for reason (2)=
=2E =20
Because the ports build cluster installs the dependencies of the por=
t it
is currently trying to build from binary packages, any lower level p=
ort
that fails will prevent packages being built for anything that depen=
ds on
it.
Packages may still be built internal to the build cluster and used to ful=
fil
dependencies although their licensing terms forbid /release/ in compiled =
form,
so (1) doesn't contribute all that much to (3).
An awful lot of work by a great many people goes towards minimizing the e=
ffects
of (2) and that automatically ameliorates (3). There's always more to do=
though,
and anyone volunteering their help will be gratefully received. See
http://portsmon.freebsd.org/ for a database of the current statuses.
(1) depends on the authors of the package changing their licensing polici=
es;=20
frequently persuading people to do that is an uphill struggle and often r=
equires=20
lobbying by a whole mass of people.
Then there are a few oddball packages not built for various other reasons=
=2E Eg.
building OpenOffice basically ties up too many system resources from the =
build
cluster for too long, so I believe that it is still the case that it is l=
eft to
3rd parties to generate and publish packages. =20
Hmmm.. also, just an afterthought and probably insultingly obvious, but w=
here are
you fetching the pkgs from? Be aware that the installation media only co=
ntain a=20
selection of the most popular packages because there simply isn't space t=
o include=20
everything. Go to the FTP sites for a comprehensive service.
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enigC84AAF456B0C7654CA7F601D
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEAREIAAYFAksVf4UACgkQ8Mjk52CukIyBrwCeI+y1+2mae5TI191X8BPr5EL/
XDQAn0QFOdF4EKh4dD9TU6wWcNBxYaxm
=CngR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigC84AAF456B0C7654CA7F601D--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B157F7E.8050601>