ANy difference between 5.X ports tree and 4.X ports tree ?

[Stephen Hilton]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:12:55 -0600
Stephen Hilton <nospam at hiltonbsd.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:18:44 -0600
> Tillman Hodgson <tillman at seekingfire.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:16:32AM -0800, clark shishido wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:42:38AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
> > > > John Kennedy <jk at jk.homeunix.net> writes:
> > > >>   There are *lots* of differences between 4.x, 5.x and current given some
> > > > 
> > > > there is no "more or less".  there is only one ports tree, and a
> > > > freshly updated ports tree on a 4.9 box is exactly the same as a
> > > > freshly updated ports tree on a 5.2 box.
> > > 
> > > the actual CVS tree yes, but from a user perspective where some
> > > packages may build on 4-STABLE and not on 5-CURRENT there are
> > > differences, that's why separate INDEX and INDEX-5 ports listings
> > > exist where some ports will build under 4-STABLE but not 5-CURRENT.
> > > 
> > > One behavioral difference which I like is "make package" where
> > > *.tgz packages are 4-STABLE and *.tbz packages are 5-CURRENT.
> > 
> > It's because of that that I NFS export two copies of the ports tree, one
> > for 4.X and one for 5.X. Otherwise the INDEXes were clobbering each
> > other and /usr/ports/packages was ... interesting. I also have both i386
> > and sparc64 machines, which is yet another twist on packages.
> > 
> > I'd love to reclaim the disk the disk space by running only a single
> > ports tree. I'd also love to have the build server (which is -STABLE)
> > perform the all the INDEX making. Is there a clean way to do this?
> > 
> 
> I am also interested in a solution for this. I use portupgrade and can 
> "make index" from 4.9 and get the INDEX file, then "make index" from a 
> 5.2 box and get INDEX-5, but the "portsdb -u" step seems to make a 
> common INDEX.db from 5.2 INDEX-5 or from the 4.9 INDEX file.
> 
> In the man page for portsdb there is an environment option for 
> "PORTS_DBDIR". If I set my environment options in the pkgtools.conf file 
> for the 4.9 and 5.2 boxes to place the INDEX.db in /var/db/pkg and 
> rm the INDEX.db from the /usr/ports directory then each machine should 
> have its "version appropriate" INDEX.db file in its /var/db/pkg dir.
> 
> Snipped from my /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf files:
> 
> FreeBSD 5.2
> ------------------------------------------
>    ENV['PORTSDIR'] ||= '/usr/ports'
>    ENV['PORTS_INDEX'] ||= ENV['PORTSDIR'] + '/INDEX-5'
>    ENV['PKG_DBDIR'] ||= '/var/db/pkg'
>    ENV['PKG_TMPDIR'] ||= '/var/tmp'
>    ENV['PORTS_DBDIR'] ||= ENV['PKG_DBDIR']
>    ENV['PACKAGES'] ||= ENV['PORTSDIR'] + '/packages'
>    ENV['PKG_PATH'] ||= ENV['PACKAGES'] + '/All'
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> FreeBSD 4.9
> ------------------------------------------
>    ENV['PORTSDIR'] ||= '/usr/ports'
>    ENV['PORTS_INDEX'] ||= ENV['PORTSDIR'] + '/INDEX'
>    ENV['PKG_DBDIR'] ||= '/var/db/pkg'
>    ENV['PKG_TMPDIR'] ||= '/var/tmp'
>    ENV['PORTS_DBDIR'] ||= ENV['PKG_DBDIR']
>    ENV['PACKAGES'] ||= ENV['PORTSDIR'] + '/packages'
>    ENV['PKG_PATH'] ||= ENV['PACKAGES'] + '/All'
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> This seems to work for me, but would like some feedback as to whether 
> this is the correct way to accomplish this.
> 

After reading my post I see that the issue of package building for 
5.2 and 4.9 was not addressed.

FreeBSD 5.2
------------------------------------------
   ENV['PORTSDIR'] ||= '/usr/ports'
   ENV['PORTS_INDEX'] ||= ENV['PORTSDIR'] + '/INDEX-5'
   ENV['PKG_DBDIR'] ||= '/var/db/pkg'
   ENV['PKG_TMPDIR'] ||= '/var/tmp'
   ENV['PORTS_DBDIR'] ||= ENV['PKG_DBDIR']
   ENV['PACKAGES'] ||= ENV['PORTSDIR'] + '/packages5.2'
   ENV['PKG_PATH'] ||= ENV['PACKAGES'] + '/All'
------------------------------------------

FreeBSD 4.9
------------------------------------------
   ENV['PORTSDIR'] ||= '/usr/ports'
   ENV['PORTS_INDEX'] ||= ENV['PORTSDIR'] + '/INDEX'
   ENV['PKG_DBDIR'] ||= '/var/db/pkg'
   ENV['PKG_TMPDIR'] ||= '/var/tmp'
   ENV['PORTS_DBDIR'] ||= ENV['PKG_DBDIR']
   ENV['PACKAGES'] ||= ENV['PORTSDIR'] + '/packages4.9'
   ENV['PKG_PATH'] ||= ENV['PACKAGES'] + '/All'
------------------------------------------

Then mkdir /usr/ports/packages5.2 and mkdir /usr/ports/packages4.9

This also seems to work fine for me, but would like some feedback as to 
whether this is the correct way to accomplish this. My /usr/ports dir 
is an NFS mount (rw) so either machine can add distfiles and the ports 
work directorys are set to /var/portswrk by this environment variable 
set in my /etc/make.conf:

------------------------------------------
# Ports can place their working directories somewhere other than under
# /usr/ports.
WRKDIRPREFIX=   /var/portswrk
------------------------------------------

Things to keep in mind, /var in my examples has _lots_ of free space,
running "portsclean -DD" is probably not a good idea if the 4.9 box 
and the 5.2 box have different installed ports, due to distfile 
deletions.


Regards,


Stephen Hilton
nospam at hiltonbsd.com