From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Thu Jul 7 14:42:22 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF25B82496 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:42:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu) Received: from gromit.dlib.vt.edu (gromit.dlib.vt.edu [128.173.126.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "gromit.dlib.vt.edu", Issuer "Chumby Certificate Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 234EC120A for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:42:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu) Received: from mather.chumby.lan (c-71-63-91-41.hsd1.va.comcast.net [71.63.91.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gromit.dlib.vt.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68B09319; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: Poudriere failing on some 10-STABLE ports --- "uses VFP register arguments" From: Paul Mather In-Reply-To: <20160705235305.GI3406@www.zefox.net> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <96D86C07-3B8F-4D6E-B404-DEFC9A8A954D@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> References: <854D8FF8-CE45-44C1-B371-79AA6DD782FB@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> <1466799055.72182.50.camel@freebsd.org> <20160703044730.GG3406@www.zefox.net> <5D3A3A05-27B2-4680-9711-D02696D4ABE5@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> <20160705235305.GI3406@www.zefox.net> To: bob prohaska X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 14:42:22 -0000 On Jul 5, 2016, at 7:53 PM, bob prohaska wrote: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 03:25:19PM -0400, Paul Mather wrote: >>=20 >> I've not tried to build ports natively under FreeBSD/arm because it's = much easier for me to build them on a build machine using Poudriere = along with the other architectures for which I build local repositories. >>=20 > Poudriere seems a big hammer for what I hoped is a small nail. Does it = supply dependency-resolution > services beyond those offered by portmaster or portupgrade? I used to use portmaster (and portupgrade before that) to keep installed = ports up to date on my various FreeBSD systems. About the time pkgng = was becoming mandatory, I decided to try using Poudriere for managing = ports updates as it seemed that pkg and Poudriere go hand in hand. I've = never looked back since. (I consider myself an early adopter of = Poudriere.) It's hard for me to remember precisely what portmaster offered regarding = dependency resolution to be able to say whether or not Poudriere = supplies anything beyond that. I can say that there is nothing = portmaster did that I miss under Poudriere. What I *do not* miss about = portmaster is the following, which no longer trouble me when using = Poudriere: - Having to apply ports/UPDATING workarounds when port origins move or = similar drastic changes; - Upgrade runs that break somewhere in the middle leaving me to wonder = what state I'm in; - Subtle interactions between the host environment running portmaster = affecting (and breaking) the build; - Running portmaster on individual systems instead of a centralised = build machine; Perhaps the above do not affect portmaster any more, however the big win = for me with Poudriere is that it makes it trivially easy to build your = own pkg-compatible repositories. Furthermore, it makes it easy to = tailor the ports and even target environment (make.conf and src.conf) = options for those repositories. IMHO, it gives you the best of both = worlds: the fantastic customisation offered by building your own ports = from source with the ease of use that comes with managing binary = packages using pkg on client systems. As for dependency resolution, I believe Poudriere gives you some control = over how conservative you wish to be regarding rebuilding ports when = dependencies have changed. I haven't really looked much into it, and I = think I am using the "safe" defaults that tends to rebuild all runtime = dependencies. However, Poudriere also allows you to build just a subset = of ports that you list, which is what I do---I believe the largest = repository I build has < 500 ports (based upon 59 port origins I specify = that I want), so build times are not as bad as building 20,000+ ports = (or however many there are in the total ports hierarchy). If you are managing customised ports on more than one or two FreeBSD = systems then Poudriere makes it massively easy. I can't imagine ever = going back to using portmaster. Apologies if I sound like a Poudriere cheerleader, but it really is a = tremendously useful piece of software. If I'm not mistaken, the = official FreeBSD pkg repositories are now built using Poudriere. Cheers, Paul.=