Hey everyone, I guess all of you have read the announcement of the upcoming CRUX 1.3 release. I was just wondering whether we could organize the update of CLC ports a bit; I was mainly thinking about installing either a pre-release (if there's any; Per? *g*) or 1.3 release version on some PC and trying to build all ports which have the CONTRIB-1_2 tag. Using the resulting list, we could very quickly set the new tags for ports which build fine, making the number of ports to test remarkable smaller. Even if some ports don't build because of missing dependencies or similar, the work required to get all ports tagged CONTRIB-1_3 would hopefully much very shorter. Of course, this would require an available host to test build those packages, but that's an implementation issue not to be considered for now :-) Comments welcome. Kind regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Biel, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 21:12, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hey everyone,
I guess all of you have read the announcement of the upcoming CRUX 1.3 release. I was just wondering whether we could organize the update of CLC ports a bit; I was mainly thinking about installing either a pre-release (if there's any; Per? *g*) or 1.3 release version on some PC and trying to build all ports which have the CONTRIB-1_2 tag. Using the resulting list, we could very quickly set the new tags for ports which build fine, making the number of ports to test remarkable smaller. Even if some ports don't build because of missing dependencies or similar, the work required to get all ports tagged CONTRIB-1_3 would hopefully much very shorter. Of course, this would require an available host to test build those packages, but that's an implementation issue not to be considered for now :-) Comments welcome.
Hi Johannes, (sorry, I also replied to your private address) As I wrote some time ago I'm dedicating a machine to the automatic clc port building process. I'm currently tuning up the build and report script(s). My intention was to begin with the project from CRUX 1.3 onwards- Since the machine in question is available at the moment, I volunteer for the test builds (with a pre-release or as soon as 1.3 goes gold). One problem (which I'm also experiencing with the automated building process): opt ports don't have dependencies, causing prt-get depinst fail with ports requiring some port from /opt. Should we assume all opt ports are installed for this test? Bye Simone
Hi Simone, On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 22:15:36 +0100, Simone Rota wrote:
On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 21:12, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hey everyone,
[...]
Hi Johannes, (sorry, I also replied to your private address)
As I wrote some time ago I'm dedicating a machine to the automatic clc port building process. I'm currently tuning up the build and report script(s). My intention was to begin with the project from CRUX 1.3 onwards-
Since the machine in question is available at the moment, I volunteer for the test builds (with a pre-release or as soon as 1.3 goes gold). Cool! I remembered your machine but didn't want to put any pressure on you :-)
One problem (which I'm also experiencing with the automated building process): opt ports don't have dependencies, causing prt-get depinst fail with ports requiring some port from /opt. Should we assume all opt ports are installed for this test? Well, I guess as the primary task is to see whether the packages build we should just install everything from opt; checking the deps is an important thing as well, but really a completely different story (which I'm not that concerned ATM ;-)).
Thanks in advance, Regards Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Biel, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 08:00, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hi Simone,
Since the machine in question is available at the moment, I volunteer for the test builds (with a pre-release or as soon as 1.3 goes gold). Cool! I remembered your machine but didn't want to put any pressure on you :-) Regarding this topic, I often have proposals and projects around CRUX, but never find th time to finish them. :/ I'm free from exams until the end of January, so this is a good period for CRUXing.
[deps]
Well, I guess as the primary task is to see whether the packages build we should just install everything from opt; checking the deps is an important thing as well, but really a completely different story (which I'm not that concerned ATM ;-)).
Ok, so as soon as Per releases a test ISO (as I see in this thread it should happen), I'll prepare the machine with all /base and /opt ports and launch the build process for all clc ports. For the moment we'd assume dependencies are correct: I'll simply launch a prt-get depinst for each port without removing the installed ports at the end of each loop. What about /unmaintained? should I test also these one? (of course after all /contrib are checked). I suspect there could be quite a few outdated ports over there. Regards, Simone
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Simone Rota wrote: ...
For the moment we'd assume dependencies are correct: I'll simply launch a prt-get depinst for each port without removing the installed ports at the end of each loop.
You should remove everything but base/opt after each loop to get the best results.
What about /unmaintained? should I test also these one? (of course after all /contrib are checked). I suspect there could be quite a few outdated ports over there.
No. UNMAINTAINED is UNMAINTAINED is UNMAINTAINED :) There's no version number. Bye Martin -- martin opel / fachbereich informatik - fachhochschule regensburg / email: martin.opel@informatik.fh-regensburg.de / web: http://rfhs8012.fh-regensburg.de/~opel/ / phone: +49 941 943-1336, fax: +49 941 943-1426
On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 13:45, Martin Opel wrote:
I'll simply launch a prt-get depinst for each port without removing the installed ports at the end of each loop.
You should remove everything but base/opt after each loop to get the best results.
Ok.
What about /unmaintained? should I test also these one? No. UNMAINTAINED is UNMAINTAINED is UNMAINTAINED :) There's no version number.
:) I thought it would be fine to have an idea of how many ports from unmaintaned will build. Anyway, I'll concentrate on /contrib for now. Regards, Simone
Simone Rota wrote:
As I wrote some time ago I'm dedicating a machine to the automatic clc port building process. I'm currently tuning up the build and report script(s). My intention was to begin with the project from CRUX 1.3 onwards-
Since the machine in question is available at the moment, I volunteer for the test builds (with a pre-release or as soon as 1.3 goes gold).
Will this be a public machine for CLC people where we might be able to test our ports? Or is public access unavailable? One problem I always had was that I don't update right away since my boxes are usually in use and it takes a while for me to take them down. A publicly available box would be good to test things. I know due to security risks and people being bad, such things are rarely available, so if you can allow access, cool, if not, no biggie.. This might be a good reason to research more ideas for allowing building of ports without being root. Would allow a central box for people to test ports and not require sudo or root to do so. Unfortunately, as Per said, it's difficult to find a generic solution. Personally, I think our ports are the best thing we have and also somewhat bad... We're missing features, such as post/pre scripts and built-in dependencies. I know that prt-get now does most of these things and if so, why not just integrate the tools? Make prt-get be the default build tool instead of having all these different tools? Wouldn't it be easier? Just a thought. Victor
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 20:05, Victor wrote: Hi Victor,
Since the machine in question is available at the moment, I volunteer for the test builds (with a pre-release or as soon as 1.3 goes gold).
Will this be a public machine for CLC people where we might be able to test our ports? Or is public access unavailable? One problem I always had was that I don't update right away since my boxes are usually in use and it takes a while for me to take them down. A publicly available box would be good to test things.
I know due to security risks and people being bad, such things are rarely available, so if you can allow access, cool, if not, no biggie..
I'd prefer to keep the machine private for the moment. Honestly I think that exposing a public CRUX machine to the net 24/7 would be a high security risk, given my poor security knowledge. The idea of a public test machine is very interesting (I think Sourceforge provides something similar, with some more popular distro as a build environment to test projects).
This might be a good reason to research more ideas for allowing building of ports without being root. Would allow a central box for people to test ports and not require sudo or root to do so. Unfortunately, as Per said, it's difficult to find a generic solution.
This could solve the problem only partially. User account could be enough to compromise the machine (as in Debian servers recently rooted exploiting a kernel vuln).
Personally, I think our ports are the best thing we have and also somewhat bad... We're missing features, such as post/pre scripts and built-in dependencies. I know that prt-get now does most of these things and if so, why not just integrate the tools? Make prt-get be the default build tool instead of having all these different tools? Wouldn't it be easier? Just a thought.
Victor
I suggested prt-get to be included as a default tool some time ago, maybe adding a section in the CRUX Handbook. Also pre/post install scripts could be a nice feature. I sometimes feel there's something missing with the current way we manage ports, but keep in mind most users love CRUX *because* it lacks such features. That said I'd be personally happy with a stricter standardization of ports (deps, url, whatever), but I feel most CRUX users do prefer the current, simpler way. Regards, Simone
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hey everyone,
Hi everyone,
I guess all of you have read the announcement of the upcoming CRUX 1.3 release. I was just wondering whether we could organize the update of CLC ports a bit; I was mainly thinking about installing either a pre-release (if there's any; Per? *g*) or 1.3 release version on some PC and trying to build all ports which have the CONTRIB-1_2 tag. Using the resulting list, we could very quickly set the new tags for ports which build fine, making the number of ports to test remarkable smaller. Even if some ports don't build because of missing dependencies or similar, the work required to get all ports tagged CONTRIB-1_3 would hopefully much very shorter.
A prerelease would be cool. Or Per gives 1.3 first to the maintainers and one week later to the public? I vote for a duration of let's say two or three weeks, where every maintainer may tag every port CONTRIB-1_3 (if no changes are necessary!). The most annoying thing IMHO is to have to wait for another maintainer, until he updates a port you need because of dependencies. What's your opinion? Bye Martin P.S. What about the new maintainer applications Tilo Riemer and who was the other one? -- martin opel / fachbereich informatik - fachhochschule regensburg / email: martin.opel@informatik.fh-regensburg.de / web: http://rfhs8012.fh-regensburg.de/~opel/ / phone: +49 941 943-1336, fax: +49 941 943-1426
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hey everyone,
Hi everyone, [...] A prerelease would be cool. Or Per gives 1.3 first to the maintainers and one week later to the public?
I vote for a duration of let's say two or three weeks, where every maintainer may tag every port CONTRIB-1_3 (if no changes are necessary!). INHO, one week should be enough, else it gets annoying for Per as people start using the pre release. Especially if we have a build machine,
Hi, On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 08:31:05 +0100, Martin Opel wrote: transformation of say 80% of the ports should be done within the first two days I assume. Maybe we can lay down some general time plan for releases together with Per to improve the overall experience for users of ports from CLC.
P.S. What about the new maintainer applications Tilo Riemer and who was Wasn't Rune Stokka the only one sending an application?
Best regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Biel, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
Hello,
P.S. What about the new maintainer applications Tilo Riemer and who was Wasn't Rune Stokka the only one sending an application?
I sent an email some days ago... I have two ports generated (jikes, galculator). you can download they from here: http://www.iapp.de/~riemer/ Best regards, Tilo
Hi, On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 08:31:05 +0100, Martin Opel wrote: [...]
A prerelease would be cool. Or Per gives 1.3 first to the maintainers and one week later to the public?
Yes, I plan to make a test ISO available before the real release is made.
I vote for a duration of let's say two or three weeks, where every maintainer may tag every port CONTRIB-1_3 (if no changes are necessary!). INHO, one week should be enough, else it gets annoying for Per as people start using the pre release. Especially if we have a build machine, transformation of say 80% of the ports should be done within the first two days I assume.
Maybe we can lay down some general time plan for releases together with Per to improve the overall experience for users of ports from CLC.
Sure. My problem at the moment is that I'm waiting for the 2.4.23 kernel. Once that kernel is released I will start the bootstrapping and ISO creation which will might take 2-4 days (depending on what other real life things pop up). /Per
participants (6)
-
Johannes Winkelmann -
Martin Opel -
Per Liden -
Simone Rota -
Tilo Riemer -
Victor