Old ports bugs analyzis

Arseny Nasokin eirnym at gmail.com
Wed Mar 31 04:36:31 UTC 2010

On 31 Mar 2010, at 04:14, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Arseny Nasokin <eirnym at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2010, at 00:49, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Arseny Nasokin <eirnym at gmail.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 30 Mar 2010, at 23:14, Alexey Shuvaev
>>>> <shuvaev at physik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 01:05:39AM +0400, Eir Nym wrote:
>>>>>> I work on creating system for system and ports autobuilder with  
>>>>>> custom
>>>>>> settings for my FreeBSD machines. I know about many programs,  
>>>>>> which do
>>>>>> same, but I don't like strange depends, which are not  
>>>>>> controlled by
>>>>>> OPTIONS and some another
>>>>>> I've analyse ports tree and want to say about.
>>>>>> There're lot problems with ports to create per-port PRs
>>>>>> manually.Common types of problems are listed here:
>>>>>> 0) Main part of problems in tons of ports, which has hidden  
>>>>>> options
>>>>>> (WITH & WITHOUT checking), but not using OPTIONS for them.
>>>>>> 1) There many libraries added with BUILD&RUN dependencies, not as
>>>>>> 2) Some ports has only BUILD depends to libraries, but links them
>>>>>> dynamicly.
>>>>>> 3) All(?) samba33 slaves define dependency as "samba33", and make
>>>>>> warning me about master target redefinition when do something  
>>>>>> on them.
>>>>>> 4) many ports define dependencies as
>>>>>> "${.CURDIR}/../../<category>/<dep-port-name>"
>>>>>> 5) And some adds trailing slash.
>>>>>> I want fix these problems, but I have no much time to fix several
>>>>>> thousands of ports. This work (include PR sending) needs about  
>>>>>> is 1-2
>>>>>> month per 8-10 hours a day.
>>>>> If the problems are so common, maybe there are not so many  
>>>>> problems
>>>>> at all? :)
>>>> Yes, it's features! Let's all bugs will be features! Do you  
>>>> remember The
>>>> Bat
>>>> mail client, which doesn't want support standarts at all?
>>>> Cases 0, 2, 3 and 4 are bugs.
>>>> 0: I want to control options via OPTIONS, not by knowledge about  
>>>> Makefile
>>>> syntax with much time.
>>>> 2: build port, install, remove lib and get this port unusable.
>>>> 3: where program should find package orign "samba33"?
>>>> 4: when reading Makefile, it hard to explain where port is. And  
>>>> when
>>>> ports
>>>> tree has changed place in system, it's not good idea to rebuild  
>>>> index.
>>>> 2, 5 are questions at most.
>>>> 2: libraries should be LIB_DEPENDS
>>> Caveat: static libraries are build dependencies; dynamic libraries  
>>> are
>>> lib dependencies. We had a discussion about this on #bsdports
>>> yesterday and it was a well understood fact that was being proposed
>>> for a move forward in terms of installing binary packages.
>> Port building ability will be avaliable? Now ports tree has bugs,  
>> but I can
>> turn on/of custom build options. I use most of ports with custom  
>> settings.
> Today binary packages are rolled as generic as possible provided the
> architecture they're built for and are monolithic, meaning that they
> contain the build, lib, patch, and run dependencies required to build
> everything, as they're generated after an in-place install in
> ${PREFIX} .
> One of many ideas we were kicking around on #bsdports was to produce
> `fat packages' which would be usable in package installation and ports
> building scenarios (similar to the headache that exists in many Linux
> distros with -devel and non-devel packages), but the user could
> specify whether or not they wanted the -devel pieces or not (if it
> applied) -- so only one set of packages would need to be distributed.
> We didn't really kick the idea around too much, but it was still a
> novelty that should be `nursed' to a proper conclusion as it would
> allow folks who roll packages and install on embedded systems /
> install bases, or prefer installing via packages, to have small
> install bases, and smaller potential binary roll up after the fact.
> Thanks,
> -Garrett

I can't see and discuss in IRC due browser and platform(software part)  
limitations in nearest future.

I don't clearly understand, will be ports system removed? Will there  
will be sourse and binary packages or will it be Gentoo-style  
"portages", which will provide installation from binary or source with  

Almost all packages in my systems has custom settings. 

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list