[Default] On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 12:45:34 -0500, Mark Linimon <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:24:31AM -0400, [email protected] wrote: >> The number of ports to build a server-of-all-work is not large. > >Now the problem is getting people to agree on exactly what that >subset is. Since that's what I integrate for my dev use, I'd be happy to take a zero'th-order cut at defining it, if nobody else wants to. > >If there is interest, I can provide the examples and code I use >whenever I start up a new machine here at the house, e.g. powerpc64, >sparc64, etc. And we'll see how close to agreement people can get. Sounds good t'me! > >(Yes, I'm quite skeptical.) > >> Unnecessarily complex and a source of uncontrolled errors, yes, > >One person's "unnecessary" is another person's "necessary". By "unnecessary", Mark, I mean the fact that the bits are not controlled locally, and thus potentially change from moment to moment such that it's impossible to guarantee that two people building the same app with the same options on two different days, or even hours, will get the same result. Switching to a central repository model, where the bits are fetched from around the globe only once per cycle, sanitised, and thereafter read only from the repository, would drop the number of file-not-founds and wrong-versions down pretty close to zero. > >> Specialist workstations such as sound/video editing? Maybe. > >You'll immediately go from a few hundred ports to a few thousand ports. > I'm happy to take your word for it, because I've no clue. I wonder whether the most important subset could be determined by survey. Any views on that? >No one has ever done the work on "most minimal set of dependencies" >in the ports tree -- and that's because it's hard work. Add to that >the fact that the technology has never supported partial checkouts >and it complicates things. No argument from me! IMO a big contributor to the problem is that the bits haven't been normalised and integrated into libraries. So the process is frankensteinean: odds and bobs dredged up wherever they can be found and stuck together in hope that they'll cooperate. Just looking at the stuff that goes into Firefox made my blood run cold, and completely explained (fsvo explained) where all the problems come from with that app. > >tl;dr: I do have long-time experience building subsets of the ports >tree and in my experience it's harder than people think, once you >get beyond a few dozen targets. I don't doubt that even slightly. But I do think the magnitude could be at least reduced by moving toward normalised bits. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
