Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 15:10:13 +0300 From: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> To: Vladimir Druzenko <vvd@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 589aaaeb09b7 - main - multimedia/libvpx: update 1.14.0 Message-ID: <CALH631=nHuRvzGbZaMAzU_ZiRwVr74KhLFBHJKE30k8rRsjHGQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6e13868f-8910-4468-9e1d-2a231a0723ca@freebsd.org> References: <202401200042.40K0gNmu053279@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <240f4c88-582d-4da4-ba92-50d11ddfade3@freebsd.org> <m5bjygorxxilrvtyoqmb54ablzs4tjiocvfjjzskoffipyjlqb@7ap2zou7cm3q> <6e13868f-8910-4468-9e1d-2a231a0723ca@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 2:40=E2=80=AFPM Vladimir Druzenko <vvd@freebsd.org>= wrote: > > 20.01.2024 14:10, Mathieu Arnold =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 12:07:03PM +0300, Vladimir Druzenko wrote: > >> Can we make some kind of schedule for mass bumps of huge ports? > >> Users who build from ports can schedule upgrade and prevent build some= thing > >> very big "2 days in a row". > >> Even if you use binary packages, updating for example virtualbox will = entail > >> a restart (savestate/start) of all virtual machines, and this must be > >> planned in advance. > >> If this already exists, please point to it. > >> Thanks! > > Hi, > > > > I am not sure what you are complaining about. > > On the one side, it seems that you want to build things yourself and to > > have everything up-to-date and you upgrade every day. > > On the other side it seems that you would like to have things not > > updated so you don't have to rebuild things every day. > > > > If you absolutely want to upgrade every day by yourself, then, well, yo= u > > have to expect to rebuild things, large and small two days in a row onc= e > > in a while... > > > > Use binary packages, there, I fixed the rebuild every day problem you > > have. > > > > Then you say that if virtualbox gets an update, you need to restart > > your virtual machines, and that it is a problem. > > Well, it is only a problem if you have the absolute need to upgrade as > > soon as possible. > > And in that case, it is your problem. > > Most of the time, the virtualbox updates are not critical security > > issues and they can be planned on your side for when it is convenient > > for you. > > > > In any way, nobody forces you to upgrade as soon as there is an update > > of a port, but in the same way, nothing is going to force the rest of u= s > > to not commit to ports because it is inconvenient for you... > > Complaining? Why do you think so? > I just ask about possibility to planning. If no - maybe create one? Maybe= somebody have ideas how to do this better and etc? I doubt it'd possible to implement. How a committer would be supposed to know when he's clear to push "big" update and when he should wait a bit? Now multiply this by the number of "big" ports and you'll see that everyone start to fight for a "push quant" like hundreds of threads fight for CPU cores. > It isn't "complaining". > Maybe my poor English is the issue=E2=80=A6 > > About virtualbox: I planned update several days ago for yesterday, but to= day I got bump. Same for firefox - just updated and now I must do it again = or get "problems" with prepare update for my ports (freerdp* depends on ffm= peg). If I had known about today's mass bump, I would have planned update f= or today instead of yesterday. And keep a lot of time=E2=80=A6 > I don't need update as soon as possible, but I need to know how long (app= roximately) I must wait before next mass bump for planning update. I don't quite get it what's the problem, assuming you're using pouriere. Recompiling some stuff will just update packages in a repository, you don't need to do `pkg upgrade` after that.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALH631=nHuRvzGbZaMAzU_ZiRwVr74KhLFBHJKE30k8rRsjHGQ>