An introduction to DPorts

[Justin Sherrill]

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.

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.

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.

None of this is necessarily news; I'm just thinking out loud of what this
potentially entails for release.




On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:52 AM, John Marino <dragonflybsd at marino.st> wrote:

> On 1/3/2013 03:56, Justin Sherrill wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:46 PM, John Marino <dragonflybsd at marino.st
>> <mailto:dragonflybsd at marino.st**>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     The long-term plan is that building from source will *not* be
>>     recommended to new users.  Since theoretically every single port in
>>     the repository is buildable, every single one of them should be
>>     stored in an official binary repository.  The first recommendation
>>     will be to install from binary.  Packages should not be missing.  I
>>     am aiming for something reliable and complete.
>>
>>
>> How is the binary repository built up?  I think you were using
>> poudriere, but if so I assume it's not the same version that is
>> available from the etoilebsd.net <http://etoilebsd.net> site.  I'd like
>>
>> to try building a large chunk of packages and testing installs/etc,
>> especially to compare to the pkgsrc bulk build process.
>>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I am thinking about maintaining several binary repositories
> simultaneously, e.g.:
>
> A. DragonFly Release 3.4 (Static)
>    i386 version
>    x86_64 version
> B. DragonFly Release 3.4 (Latest versions)
>    i386 version
>    x86_64 version
> C. DragonFly Release 3.6 (Static)
>    i386 version
>    x86_64 version
> D. DragonFly Release 3.6 (Latest versions)
>    i386 version
>    x86_64 version
>
> 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.
>
> I forgot to mention last night:
> 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.
>
> John
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130103/00a800ab/attachment-0003.htm>