Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:43:36 +0200 From: Alexander Yerenkow <yerenkow@gmail.com> To: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Auditdistd user question Message-ID: <CAPJF9w=tmDm46Oq5TOCeUUUvCsFUUyOU9jtKUwmhti174izeig@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-r2JGvQUT6fipVQ1Jz2A%2BNqyFxHRqxKj_XdgLRvRx=Sw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPJF9wmgJpv-dTBkxSBe5X4c5UqSr57Fr%2Bt6GSLnf04F77awRw@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo83-r2JGvQUT6fipVQ1Jz2A%2BNqyFxHRqxKj_XdgLRvRx=Sw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2013/1/2 Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> > On 2 January 2013 14:04, Alexander Yerenkow <yerenkow@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello there and please excuse my harshness. > > > > I just installed 9.1, and I tried to set up poudriere with 9/stable. > > It took a lot of time compiling kernel and world, and after this it all > > failed with message about missing auditdistd user. > > I just can't find words. > > Why this user presence not checked during buildworld at least? Or by just > > invoking updated Makefile? If there any need to build world without > install > > it, wouldn't be better make some conditional flag, > > like BUILD_WITHOUT_AUDITDISTD, instead of silent building and failing > after > > that at install stage. > > Of course, in current way just "buildworld" not broken, but "buildworld > > installworld" is. > > This looks like like carefully hidden trap, from someone with specific > > sense of humor. > > Or am I missing something, and this is not terribly wrong? > > While I agree with you in principle, I must point out that you mustn't > try to run package builds on a newer jail than your host. This causes > weird kernel/world synchronisation issues. > I'm just provided info about my setup as background. My main builder is on some current revision, and it can't build 9.1 due to some compiler bug. To not mess with upgrading it, I tried to setup additional 9.1 builder (With having in plans probably upgrade host to stable, maybe not). I just think that such improvements could be improved, and in future better think of all possible cases, not about one. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169659 [for an example] > > As far as I know there are no problems with running older jails on > newer hosts (thankfully). > > Chris > -- Regards, Alexander Yerenkow
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPJF9w=tmDm46Oq5TOCeUUUvCsFUUyOU9jtKUwmhti174izeig>