Professional Web Applications Themes

Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question - FreeBSD

Updating a computer, pkg_info reported I only had two packages, cvsup-without-gui-16.1h and perl-5.8.5, both of which were out of date as reported by pkg_version. I tried to install portmanager, but it was not able to get the needed files from http://portmanager.sunsite.dk. So, I installed portupgrade. Those files came in fine. I then did "portupgrade -a -N -vu -rR", which was successful for me several months ago on another computer. The computer ran for over nearly two hours, with messages scrolling by so fast it was nearly impossible to read, filling up the screen with text. I used script so as ...

  1. #1

    Default Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    Updating a computer, pkg_info reported I only had two packages,
    cvsup-without-gui-16.1h and perl-5.8.5, both of which were out
    of date as reported by pkg_version.

    I tried to install portmanager, but it was not able to get the
    needed files from http://portmanager.sunsite.dk.

    So, I installed portupgrade. Those files came in fine.

    I then did "portupgrade -a -N -vu -rR", which was successful for me
    several months ago on another computer.

    The computer ran for over nearly two hours, with messages scrolling
    by so fast it was nearly impossible to read, filling up the screen with
    text. I used script so as to capture the screen messages; the capture
    file of the screen is 1.2MB in size!

    Now, pkg_info says I have 10 packages installed; added were ezm3,
    gettext, gmake, libiconv, libtool, portupgrade,ruby and ruby18. If
    these all required to make portupgrade or perl work, where is that
    reference?

    Help! What did I do?

    Jay O'Brien
    Rio Linda, California, USA


    PS.. I tried to install portmanager again, and this time it got the
    files immediately and installed fine. It took about a minute, not two
    hours. It reports that all my ports are up to date. Whew.

    Jay Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    Jay O'Brien on 2005-03-27 18:20:00 -0800:
     

    They are required to build and run portupgrade. If you do a 'make search
    name=portupgrade' from /usr/ports, it will list all the dependencies.
     

    That's because portupgrade did all the work :) If you had run
    portmanager before running portupgrade, you would have seen something
    similar - portmanager taking two hours and portupgrade taking almost
    no time at all.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)

    iD8DBQFCR2yFAud/2YgchcQRAt3tAJ9VhoFWki3wYvqyDuE7epYf0ocGggCg5Poz
    CVq0wu6jBqMxjRxHCspA0zM=
    =LjjS
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    Alec Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    Alec Berryman wrote:
     
    >
    >
    > They are required to build and run portupgrade. If you do a 'make search
    > name=portupgrade' from /usr/ports, it will list all the dependencies.
    >

    >
    >
    > That's because portupgrade did all the work :) If you had run
    > portmanager before running portupgrade, you would have seen something
    > similar - portmanager taking two hours and portupgrade taking almost
    > no time at all.[/ref]

    Alec,

    Thanks, I searched the FreeBSD Handbook for "dependency" and didn't find any
    reference to "make search". I guess it is one of those things that once you
    know about it you don't have to look for it any more. Unfortunately a lot
    of the doentation I can review is written for those folks who already
    know the answers.

    Thanks for the heads up on 'make search', even if I can't find a complete
    description of the command. I find that it is referenced in the manual,
    however.

    I see that several of the packages that were installed aren't listed in the
    dependencies for portupgrade. Only the two ruby programs are listed.

    Jay

    Jay Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:08:56 -0800, Jay O'Brien <net> wrote: 
    > >
    > >
    > > They are required to build and run portupgrade. If you do a 'make search
    > > name=portupgrade' from /usr/ports, it will list all the dependencies.
    > >
    > > 
    > >
    > >
    > > That's because portupgrade did all the work :) If you had run
    > > portmanager before running portupgrade, you would have seen something
    > > similar - portmanager taking two hours and portupgrade taking almost
    > > no time at all.[/ref]
    >
    > Alec,
    >
    > Thanks, I searched the FreeBSD Handbook for "dependency" and didn't find any
    > reference to "make search". I guess it is one of those things that once you
    > know about it you don't have to look for it any more. Unfortunately a lot
    > of the doentation I can review is written for those folks who already
    > know the answers.
    >
    > Thanks for the heads up on 'make search', even if I can't find a complete
    > description of the command. I find that it is referenced in the manual,
    > however.
    >
    > I see that several of the packages that were installed aren't listed in the
    > dependencies for portupgrade. Only the two ruby programs are listed.[/ref]

    ezm3, gettext, gmake, libiconv, libtool are the build dependencies for
    cvsup-without-gui.

    # cd /usr/ports
    # make search name="cvsup-without-gui"

    If you updated your soirces/ports "cvsup" then portupgrade did what
    you asked it to do. It Updated all outdated packages/ports and there
    dependencies.
     


    --
    Kind regards
    Abu Khaled
    Abu Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    Abu Khaled wrote:
     

    Abu, I don't get that result. I only show ezm3-1.2.

    # cd /usr/ports
    # make search name="cvsup-without-gui"
    Port: cvsup-without-gui-16.1h_2
    Path: /usr/ports/net/cvsup-without-gui
    Info: General network file distribution system optimized for CVS (non-GUI version)
    Maint: org
    B-deps: ezm3-1.2
    R-deps:
    WWW: http://www.cvsup.org/
    #
     

    I'm convinced that you are right. However, why don't I show the other
    dependencies?

    Jay

    Jay Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:27:17 -0800, Jay O'Brien <net> wrote: 
    >
    > Abu, I don't get that result. I only show ezm3-1.2.
    >
    > # cd /usr/ports
    > # make search name="cvsup-without-gui"
    > Port: cvsup-without-gui-16.1h_2
    > Path: /usr/ports/net/cvsup-without-gui
    > Info: General network file distribution system optimized for CVS (non-GUI version)
    > Maint: org
    > B-deps: ezm3-1.2
    > R-deps:
    > WWW: http://www.cvsup.org/
    > #

    >
    > I'm convinced that you are right. However, why don't I show the other
    > dependencies?[/ref]

    # cd /usr/ports
    # make search name=ezm3

    That's the best thing about portupgrade/portmanager. We don't have to
    worry (too much) about dependencies.
     


    --
    Kind regards
    Abu Khaled
    Abu Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    it was said:
     [/ref]
    packages/ports 
    >
    >I'm convinced that you are right. However, why don't I show the[/ref]
     

    Hello,

    They are recursive dependencies. Check each ports requirements.
    cvsup-without-gui depends on ezm3. ezm3 depends on gmake,
    gettext and libiconv. libiconv depends on libtool...and the foot
    bone's connected to the toe bone :).

    hth,

    stheg

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    http://mail.
    stheg Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    stheg olloydson wrote:
     

    stheg,

    Thank you. Great learning experience. Especially 'make search'. That is
    very useful. But how does it work (/usr/ports/Makefile doesn't have a
    SEARCH statement) and is it doented somewhere, like in a MAN page?

    The handbook, 4.3, mentions 'make search' but doesn't explain how it
    works.

    Jay





    Jay Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    On Sunday 27 March 2005 09:41 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote: 
    >
    > stheg,
    >
    > Thank you. Great learning experience. Especially 'make search'. That
    > is very useful. But how does it work (/usr/ports/Makefile doesn't
    > have a SEARCH statement) and is it doented somewhere, like in a
    > MAN page?
    >
    > The handbook, 4.3, mentions 'make search' but doesn't explain how it
    > works.
    >
    > Jay[/ref]

    It would be nice if the ports make options were better doented, but
    you can read through /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk and find information
    on the various options.

    here is an example:

    # all-depends-list
    # - Show all directories which are dependencies
    # for this port.

    then

    cd /usr/ports/lang/ezm3/
    make all-depends-list

    result:

    /usr/ports/converters/libiconv
    /usr/ports/devel/gettext
    /usr/ports/devel/gmake
    /usr/ports/devel/libtool15

    -Mike
    Michael Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:51:28 -0800, Michael C. Shultz
    <com> wrote: 
    > >
    > > stheg,
    > >
    > > Thank you. Great learning experience. Especially 'make search'. That
    > > is very useful. But how does it work (/usr/ports/Makefile doesn't
    > > have a SEARCH statement) and is it doented somewhere, like in a
    > > MAN page?
    > >
    > > The handbook, 4.3, mentions 'make search' but doesn't explain how it
    > > works.
    > >
    > > Jay[/ref]
    >
    > It would be nice if the ports make options were better doented, but
    > you can read through /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk and find information
    > on the various options.
    >
    > here is an example:
    >
    > # all-depends-list
    > # - Show all directories which are dependencies
    > # for this port.
    >
    > then
    >
    > cd /usr/ports/lang/ezm3/
    > make all-depends-list
    >
    > result:
    >
    > /usr/ports/converters/libiconv
    > /usr/ports/devel/gettext
    > /usr/ports/devel/gmake
    > /usr/ports/devel/libtool15
    >
    > -Mike
    > _______________________________________________
    > org mailing list
    > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "org"
    >[/ref]

    Thank you Michael for the very usefull information.
    Ahh, can't say how much I've learned after joining the lists.

    --
    Kind regards
    Abu Khaled
    Abu Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    it was said:
     

    Hello,

    It uses /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk. I doubt the options in there
    are officially doented, unless they are in the Developer's
    Handbook. There used to be a really good replacement for make
    search that had a lot of nifty options. Because I rarely used it
    (or make search), what it was called is lost to the mists of
    foggy memory....

    Regards,

    stheg

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    http://mail.
    stheg Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    Michael C. Shultz wrote:
     

    Mike,

    That's great info, thank you. It really helps put this into perspective.

    I did portmanager -sl and it identifies 7 candidates for deletion.
    It identifies cvsup-without-gui and also identifies ezm3 upon which
    it depends. Am I missing something here or shouldn't ezm3 not been
    identified as a "leaf port"?

    Jay





    Jay Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    On Monday 28 March 2005 06:41, Jay O'Brien wrote: 
    >
    > stheg,
    >
    > Thank you. Great learning experience. Especially 'make search'. That is
    > very useful. But how does it work (/usr/ports/Makefile doesn't have a
    > SEARCH statement) and is it doented somewhere, like in a MAN page?
    >
    > The handbook, 4.3, mentions 'make search' but doesn't explain how it
    > works.[/ref]

    make seach is doented in man ports
    RW Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:49:11 -0800
    Jay O'Brien <net> wrote:
     
    >
    > Mike,
    >
    > That's great info, thank you. It really helps put this into perspective.
    >
    > I did portmanager -sl and it identifies 7 candidates for deletion.
    > It identifies cvsup-without-gui and also identifies ezm3 upon which
    > it depends. Am I missing something here or shouldn't ezm3 not been
    > identified as a "leaf port"?[/ref]

    Good observation on your part and its a good question to ask.

    I'm not real familar with portmanager but it appears to identify the
    leaf ports in the same manner as sysutils/pkg_cutleaves and
    sysutils/pkg_rmleaves do. The utilities are only considering the
    run-dependencies as needed.

    Any port that is only required as a build-dependency is treated as
    a leaf port. They could be removed but it would have to be rebuilt
    if it were needed again.

    I usually keep these tools that are only needed for building since I
    run portupgrade nightly. Others that have limited hard disk space
    might elect to remove them and their associated source tarballs. Its
    left to the individual to decide whether or not to keep them.

    You're on the right track to understanding how the ports system works
    and using its tools. Just keep reading the man pages and observing
    how things function.

    Best regards,

    Randy
    --
    Randy Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    On Sunday 27 March 2005 11:49 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote: 
    >
    > Mike,
    >
    > That's great info, thank you. It really helps put this into
    > perspective.
    >
    > I did portmanager -sl and it identifies 7 candidates for deletion.
    > It identifies cvsup-without-gui and also identifies ezm3 upon which
    > it depends. Am I missing something here or shouldn't ezm3 not been
    > identified as a "leaf port"?
    >
    > Jay[/ref]

    ezm3 is a build dependency most likely, meaning once cvsup-without-gui
    is built it no longer needs ezm3, runs fine without it.

    -Mike
    Michael Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    On Monday 28 March 2005 05:50 am, Randy Pratt wrote: 
    > >
    > > Mike,
    > >
    > > That's great info, thank you. It really helps put this into
    > > perspective.
    > >
    > > I did portmanager -sl and it identifies 7 candidates for deletion.
    > > It identifies cvsup-without-gui and also identifies ezm3 upon which
    > > it depends. Am I missing something here or shouldn't ezm3 not been
    > > identified as a "leaf port"?[/ref]
    >
    > Good observation on your part and its a good question to ask.
    >
    > I'm not real familar with portmanager but it appears to identify the
    > leaf ports in the same manner as sysutils/pkg_cutleaves and
    > sysutils/pkg_rmleaves do. The utilities are only considering the
    > run-dependencies as needed.[/ref]

    The main difference between sysutils/pkg_cutleaves and portmanager -slid
    is portmanager catches all of the leafs in one pass, even after you've
    deleted a few. With pkg_cutleaves when you remove a leaf you have to
    look through all of them again to see if any new ones were exposed. 

    Correct. 

    The idea behind identifying leaves is to see ports you may have
    installed and forgotten about because you never use them. Unless space
    is a problem I would recommend not removing ports that are build tools
    like ezm.

    -Mike 
    Michael Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    RW wrote:
     

    It sure is! THANK YOU!

    Jay

    Jay Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    Randy, Mike:

    Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't considered a dependency
    that goes away after the dependent port is built. Now it
    makes perfect sense.

    Jay

    Jay Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Jay O'Brien wrote:
     

    Also check out the port
    /usr/ports/sysutils/pkg_tree

    It's very usefull to see dependencies.

    --
    http://stringsutils.com
    Utility for developers. Compute length, MD5, CRC and more.
    Francisco Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question

    On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 06:20:00PM -0800, Jay O'Brien wrote: 

    This is normal.
     

    These are in the port system /usr/ports/
     

    You told you system to install portmanager and the ports that it needs,
    but also all the ports that are based on it. Please check 'man
    portupgrade' about the options.

    --
    Alex

    Please copy the original recipients, otherwise I may not read your reply.
    WWW: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/
    Alex Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: March 17th, 01:29 AM
  2. Port options and portmanager
    By Chris in forum FreeBSD
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 14th, 11:33 AM
  3. portmanager hosed
    By Michael C. Shultz in forum FreeBSD
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 16th, 06:24 PM
  4. Portmanager output, what's it mean?
    By Benjamin Dover in forum FreeBSD
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 15th, 11:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139