Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 22:05:56 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: "developers@freebsd.org Developers" <developers@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17 Message-ID: <A47B889D-CB3D-42DE-AE52-48EFEAE1EC6B@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <82CF1B3F-B5F0-4B26-A6D1-8767370C1E0E@FreeBSD.org> References: <4D277E4B.1030006@FreeBSD.org> <4D27840A.8020107@FreeBSD.org> <4D2785A7.7080106@FreeBSD.org> <4D27888F.4090703@FreeBSD.org> <467EA052-70AB-4C4C-B28E-9AD037C8BF14@FreeBSD.org> <4D27A3B8.4070401@FreeBSD.org> <82CF1B3F-B5F0-4B26-A6D1-8767370C1E0E@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:48 PM, Ade Lovett wrote: >=20 > On Jan 07, 2011, at 17:37 , Doug Barton wrote: >> On 01/07/2011 13:54, Ade Lovett wrote: >>>=20 >>> Most likely it's low priority given all the other exp-runs that >>> affect 7.x/8.x, tweaking things for an 6.x-EOL-tagged tree, and a >>> bunch of other infrastructure stuff. Not to mention the impending = 7- >>> and 8- RELEASEs. >=20 > Before I start on this, I would like a few things noted for the = record: >=20 > 1. I have set Reply-To to developers@ (this should be a major hint) > 2. I am not a current member of portmgr@ > 3. I requested, and served, for a very short time, on the first = portmgr >=20 >=20 >> That may very well be the case, but if so then it's incumbent on = portmgr to communicate that. If you check the audit trail you will find = that they did not. >=20 > Horsecrap. You are taking an individual PR history without reference = to the whole host of things that were also going on at the same time. = Like it or not, when it comes to ports, -STABLE wins over -CURRENT every = single time. >=20 >> IMO this is a total red herring, and has been for several years now. = I run -current every day on my real-work system, and barring the = occasional hiccup it's been buildable nearly every time I've tried. >=20 > Apologies for not being able to drive my email client appropriately. = The issue at hand is one of running -CURRENT. >=20 > There is a distinct, and fundamental difference between running = -CURRENT on a single system, as opposed to a cluster of systems that are = tightly interlinked. I do not doubt that -CURRENT works for you on = your individual machines. If you would like a taste of how heavily = package build clusters stress out whatever host system they are running = on, then I urge you to install one of the two tinderbox ports under = ports-mgmt, proceed to add, let's say, x11/gnome2 or x11/kde4, and run = the build. >=20 > make buildworld/buildkernel/installworld/installkernel plus associated = steps is in fact an exceptionally tiny subset of what FreeBSD actually = does on a daily basis. Even more so when it comes to the bulk building = of packages that apparently a lot of folks rely on. >=20 >> The way I would approach the problem of building packages for = -current is to pick a day to update the src tree, then do the following: >=20 > Sadly, the only thing I can say to your 4-step procedure, and with = utmost politeness, is that your src-centric views are completely missing = the point. "4. start building ports" is in fact a 20- or 30-step = process to ensure no cross-contamination. Even a cursory glance at = /usr/ports/Tools/portbuild would verify this. No-one really likes = having massive clusters, requiring continual attention (hardware = failures and so on). Really. >=20 >> But the current system of "don't do anything" just isn't cutting it. >=20 > I look forward to your input and total solutions on how to make this = better. I do. This may sound sarcastic, but I am absolutely, = positively, 100-percent looking for better solutions, particularly in = situations where, to take a random example, the entire existing compiler = base is removed and replaced with something better. >=20 > Doug, you have comprehensively shown that in its current (sic) = instantiation, the package building cluster is completely, utterly, and = totally incapable of keeping up with the sandbox that is -CURRENT. >=20 > I for one look forward to your proposed solutions to this righteous = problem. Hi Ade, Sorry to jump in, but I think that a lot of the solution to this = problem is two part: 1. Using the VM resources at your.org . 2. Replicating pointyhat's infrastructure for mass deployment. Back at BSDCan 2010 your.org offered cycles and resources for = tinderboxes (ports and src alike), but I think that due to lack of time = / resources portmgr hasn't been able to invest in that solution (*slap = me please if I'm incorrect :)..*). Not sure if the src development = tinderbox infrastructure became a reality either. If developers had access to a [relatively] easy to deploy = infrastructure and pointyhat was easy to replicate (that in and of = itself is a major project that linimon@ was working on in the past year = or so), then this would be less of a problem. Granted, the ports tree is huge, but by now dim@ could have = probably finished off a few self-service exp-runs on his own if he could = have done it on his own. Thanks, -Garrett=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A47B889D-CB3D-42DE-AE52-48EFEAE1EC6B>