From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 8 05:48:21 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C5010656C0; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 05:48:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ade@FreeBSD.org) Received: from panix.lovett.com (panix.lovett.com [166.84.7.128]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13A78FC08; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 05:48:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cpe-66-68-128-204.austin.res.rr.com ([66.68.128.204] helo=[172.16.32.150]) by panix.lovett.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1PbRf2-0009DH-0C; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 05:48:20 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ade Lovett In-Reply-To: <4D27A3B8.4070401@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 23:48:07 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <82CF1B3F-B5F0-4B26-A6D1-8767370C1E0E@FreeBSD.org> References: <4D277E4B.1030006@FreeBSD.org> <4D27840A.8020107@FreeBSD.org> <4D2785A7.7080106@FreeBSD.org> <4D27888F.4090703@FreeBSD.org> <467EA052-70AB-4C4C-B28E-9AD037C8BF14@FreeBSD.org> <4D27A3B8.4070401@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ade Lovett Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: "developers@freebsd.org Developers" List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 05:48:21 -0000 On Jan 07, 2011, at 17:37 , Doug Barton wrote: > On 01/07/2011 13:54, Ade Lovett wrote: >>=20 >> Most likely it's low priority given all the other exp-runs that >> affect 7.x/8.x, tweaking things for an 6.x-EOL-tagged tree, and a >> bunch of other infrastructure stuff. Not to mention the impending 7- >> and 8- RELEASEs. Before I start on this, I would like a few things noted for the record: 1. I have set Reply-To to developers@ (this should be a major hint) 2. I am not a current member of portmgr@ 3. I requested, and served, for a very short time, on the first portmgr =20 > That may very well be the case, but if so then it's incumbent on = portmgr to communicate that. If you check the audit trail you will find = that they did not. Horsecrap. You are taking an individual PR history without reference to = the whole host of things that were also going on at the same time. Like = it or not, when it comes to ports, -STABLE wins over -CURRENT every = single time. > IMO this is a total red herring, and has been for several years now. I = run -current every day on my real-work system, and barring the = occasional hiccup it's been buildable nearly every time I've tried. Apologies for not being able to drive my email client appropriately. = The issue at hand is one of running -CURRENT. There is a distinct, and fundamental difference between running -CURRENT = on a single system, as opposed to a cluster of systems that are tightly = interlinked. I do not doubt that -CURRENT works for you on your = individual machines. If you would like a taste of how heavily package = build clusters stress out whatever host system they are running on, then = I urge you to install one of the two tinderbox ports under ports-mgmt, = proceed to add, let's say, x11/gnome2 or x11/kde4, and run the build. make buildworld/buildkernel/installworld/installkernel plus associated = steps is in fact an exceptionally tiny subset of what FreeBSD actually = does on a daily basis. Even more so when it comes to the bulk building = of packages that apparently a lot of folks rely on. > The way I would approach the problem of building packages for -current = is to pick a day to update the src tree, then do the following: Sadly, the only thing I can say to your 4-step procedure, and with = utmost politeness, is that your src-centric views are completely missing = the point. "4. start building ports" is in fact a 20- or 30-step = process to ensure no cross-contamination. Even a cursory glance at = /usr/ports/Tools/portbuild would verify this. No-one really likes = having massive clusters, requiring continual attention (hardware = failures and so on). Really. > But the current system of "don't do anything" just isn't cutting it. I look forward to your input and total solutions on how to make this = better. I do. This may sound sarcastic, but I am absolutely, = positively, 100-percent looking for better solutions, particularly in = situations where, to take a random example, the entire existing compiler = base is removed and replaced with something better. Doug, you have comprehensively shown that in its current (sic) = instantiation, the package building cluster is completely, utterly, and = totally incapable of keeping up with the sandbox that is -CURRENT. I for one look forward to your proposed solutions to this righteous = problem. Regards, -aDe