<div>I'm thinking about pkgsrc bulk builds in comparison, because we already have pkgsrc building machines and binary download locations that could also support DPorts. </div><div><br></div><div>If I read your example right, there wouldn't be a DragonFly 3.4 (Latest) - once 3.6 is out, 3.4 wouldn't be getting updates. That's two less versions to build for, at least.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Did you want to have this as part of the 3.4 release? That would require the DPorts equivalents of the pkgsrc packages in src/nrelease to all build. We'd also have to create DPorts versions of the packages that make up the installer, and have a final location for package storage for people to use pkg and install binaries. </div>
<div><br></div><div>None of this is necessarily news; I'm just thinking out loud of what this potentially entails for release.</div><div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:52 AM, John Marino <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dragonflybsd@marino.st" target="_blank">dragonflybsd@marino.st</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 1/3/2013 03:56, Justin Sherrill wrote:<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:46 PM, John Marino <<a href="mailto:dragonflybsd@marino.st" target="_blank">dragonflybsd@marino.st</a><br></div><div class="im">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:dragonflybsd@marino.st" target="_blank">dragonflybsd@marino.st</a><u></u>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
The long-term plan is that building from source will *not* be<br>
recommended to new users. Since theoretically every single port in<br>
the repository is buildable, every single one of them should be<br>
stored in an official binary repository. The first recommendation<br>
will be to install from binary. Packages should not be missing. I<br>
am aiming for something reliable and complete.<br>
<br>
<br>
How is the binary repository built up? I think you were using<br>
poudriere, but if so I assume it's not the same version that is<br></div>
available from the <a href="http://etoilebsd.net" target="_blank">etoilebsd.net</a> <<a href="http://etoilebsd.net" target="_blank">http://etoilebsd.net</a>> site. I'd like<div class="im"><br>
to try building a large chunk of packages and testing installs/etc,<br>
especially to compare to the pkgsrc bulk build process.<br>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
The DragonFly version of poudriere is in ports-mgmt/poudriere in DPorts. It is extremely patched and it's still in development considering what François and I have experienced with bulk building recently. Regular FreeBSD users are beginning to leverage poudriere in interesting ways and I think eventually we can recommend that as well.<br>
<br>
I would not compare poudriere to pkgsrc bulk build process. For one, there's no concept of "quarterly branches" in DPorts. Building should be continuous and on-demand. The infrastructure has not been set up yet.<br>
<br>
I am thinking about maintaining several binary repositories simultaneously, e.g.:<br>
<br>
A. DragonFly Release 3.4 (Static)<br>
i386 version<br>
x86_64 version<br>
B. DragonFly Release 3.4 (Latest versions)<br>
i386 version<br>
x86_64 version<br>
C. DragonFly Release 3.6 (Static)<br>
i386 version<br>
x86_64 version<br>
D. DragonFly Release 3.6 (Latest versions)<br>
i386 version<br>
x86_64 version<br>
<br>
Then when DragonFly 3.8 is released, maintenance on the 3.4 repositories will cease. So basically packages will be newly-built for up to 2 releases.<br>
<br>
I forgot to mention last night:<br>
DPorts will not be available for Release 3.2.x or earlier. It requires 3.3.x or later. Earlier releases will be limited to pkgsrc.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
John<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>