From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 1 21:06:31 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4736A106566B for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:06:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com) Received: from shell.rawbw.com (shell.rawbw.com [198.144.192.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3388C8FC24 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:06:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eagle.syrec.org (c-24-6-221-126.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.6.221.126]) (authenticated bits=0) by shell.rawbw.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB1L6UqU035161; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:06:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B158554.9090301@rawbw.com> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:06:28 -0800 From: Yuri User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20091130) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Seaman References: <4B1572D7.60700@rawbw.com> <4B157F7E.8050601@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4B157F7E.8050601@infracaninophile.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why there are so many binary packages missing? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: yuri@rawbw.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:06:31 -0000 Matthew Seaman wrote: > Yuri wrote: >> I am seeing this for a long time. If I use 'portupgrade -aPP' >> (packages 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/screen/Makefile.diff?r1=1.77;r2=1.78)) > > 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). Because the ports build cluster installs the dependencies of > the port it > is currently trying to build from binary packages, any lower level > port > that fails will prevent packages being built for anything that > depends on > it. > Thank you for this information. Let's put aside #1. There are probably very few of those. It still seems strange: on my system all of the ports that I need build ok. Why would the port build successfully, but would fail to generate a binary package? Isn't packaging just gzipping resulting binaries with some minor additions? Also why wouldn't the cluster build and install a port, once the package fails? This way the #3 item is eliminated completely. Since it looks like there is much more likely to build a port then a binary package. Yuri