Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 19:03:31 +0100 From: Luca Pizzamiglio <luca.pizzamiglio@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The future of portmaster Message-ID: <CAB88xy-GUuX0Yt6u%2BKZxF3yYgdEQa4GvXs-HBwYUtUqWreM7QA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <a0f7340785610ffe35b4c8d3a1c262e2@ultimatedns.net> References: <CAB88xy_RU5TTE=pcsjCWsxWyU-jP91qzD9S-R1v6GKGHJg2=nQ@mail.gmail.com> <945f6d92-6834-7e2c-18c4-0a17e2c04122@columbus.rr.com> <44shneot7h.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <079d97d0-8dc7-8dcd-460e-86644f12b900@columbus.rr.com> <1244d826-e4ae-97a9-6033-8a1c79c2da9e@m5p.com> <7d0525ee-980e-a63a-f90f-974a7e1022cf@columbus.rr.com> <9ffa861978cdb1a06a69d7b9af525ad5@ultimatedns.net> <8cdf045f-a333-0fcf-c1ab-2fea2114e384@abinet.ru> <a0f7340785610ffe35b4c8d3a1c262e2@ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi all, thanks for all the replies. To summarize: * chroot/jails build could be a nice feature, but it will be an option, not a requirement. I understand the needs to build in a clean environment (poudriere and synth works in this direction for a good reason), but as port maintainer, building in a "dirty" environment detects this kind of configure problems (library auto-detected or auto-enabled) that a clean environment cannot shows. * dropping privileges is really a nice feature to add. The portstree allow you to build everything as normal user, so portmaster can be able to do it as well. * show flags when build fails should be doable * the dependency order is something I'd like to work on, also to improve the internal management I'd like to re-enabling at least --packages-build, that can be really usefu= l. I'll remove: --packages-only|-PP : it looks redundant to me -e : as above, it's redundant; to remove distfiles, --clean-distfiles can be used after a pkg delete I'm also considering to remove, if nobody is using them: * all the --index options, but only * +IGNOREME support (a file saved in /var/db/pkg/<package-name> to force ig= nore) No ETA, but I'll do my best. Best regards, pizzamig On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Chris H <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:37:16 +0300 abi <abi@abinet.ru> wrote > >> 17.02.2017 00:22, Chris H =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: >> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:48:57 -0500 Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.co= m> >> > wrote > >> >> On 02/16/17 15:40, George Mitchell wrote: >> >>> On 02/16/17 15:33, Baho Utot wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> On 02/16/17 14:01, Lowell Gilbert wrote: >> >>>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On 02/16/17 06:08, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: >> >>>>>>> I'm looking for constructive critics, feedbacks, anything that c= an >> >>>>>>> help me to make portmaster an actively maintained and used tool. >> >>>>>> If you can have it build in a clean chroot or jail then you'll ge= t my >> >>>>>> attention >> >>>>> What kind of special support? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I use it with a chroot that mounts /usr/ports (and src) read-only,= and >> >>>>> aside from the initial base system install, it took about fifteen >> >>>>> minutes to set up. >> >>>>> >> >>>> Using chroot or jails to build each individual package >> >>>> [...] >> >>> While I understand the interest in chroot/jails as an optional >> >>> feature, I hope it doesn't become required. The current non-use >> >>> of chroot/jails is, for me, a feature -- not a bug. -- George >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Having built and packaged linux from scratch using the rpm package >> >> manager, I came to find that if one is building packages to be used o= n >> >> multiple machines, one needs to build each package in a chroot >> >> environment or the package could inherit things from the parent not >> >> found in the target machine. Here by making the package unusable. >> > Hello. You shouldn't have any difficulty accomplishing your goal >> > by simply setting up a jail, and using portmaster within that jail(8). >> > portmaster really doesn't care where it's run. So long as it has >> > everything it needs to accomplish it's job(s). :-) >> > >> From my point of view, jails are overkill. Chroot should be enough and >> it would be nice if portmaster starts building in clean environment. > Oh, I won't argue that. Indeed, chroot(8) is a much lighter solution. > But for my needs, jail(8) is the best solution. As I've already setup > a number for other tasks, anyway. > Speaking of chroot(8), synth(1) chroots all its work. > > All the best. > > --Chris > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAB88xy-GUuX0Yt6u%2BKZxF3yYgdEQa4GvXs-HBwYUtUqWreM7QA>