Prev: FreeBSD Port: ocsinventory-ng-1.02.1
Next: INDEX build failed for 6.x
From: Michal Varga on 20 Jan 2010 09:39
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Helmut Schneider <jumper99(a)gmx.de> wrote:
> # pkg_info -R perl-threaded-5.8.9_3 | grep -v ^p5
> Information for perl-threaded-5.8.9_3:
>
> Required by:
> amavisd-new-2.6.4_4,1
> apache-2.2.14_5
> bsdpan-SNMP-Extension-PassPersist-0.03
> gamin-0.1.10_3
> gio-fam-backend-2.22.4
> glib-2.22.4
> mailgraph-1.14_2
> nagios-plugins-1.4.14,1
> net-snmp-5.4.2.1_6
> pango-1.26.2
> razor-agents-2.84
> rpm2cpio-1.2_2
> rrdtool-1.3.9
> #
>
>> (Also, cross-checking with /usr/local/bin/perl-after-upgrade helps
>> with some other specific cases).
>
> I did so when I upgraded from 5.8.8 to 5.8.9. I finally found myself
> doing a portupgrade -af. :)
>

I'm not a heavy Perl user, but I don't remember anything ever melting
"too much", while doing it this way. Of course, there are things like
irssi, that break -every time- you reinstall Perl (even the same
version), but one gets used to it quickly. Then there is the rest that
probably only execs some scripts with Perl and doesn't care about your
versions (much). Majority of your, or mine, installed ports have Perl
only as an inherited dependency and never directly use it, so -af is a
bit overkill in such cases, i mean:

pkg_info | wc -l
805

Whew.

So even when you're switching near-major versions, recompiling p5-*
and maybe some of those in your list (I'd randomly pick, say amavisd,
bsdpan- and razor) should be enough, the fallout will be minimal, if
any (and if so, you just rebuild that one more that still fails).
Nevertheless, your list in't that extensive, recompiling all of it
shouldn't take more than half an hour, that's still a bit cheaper than
-af :)

m.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: "Helmut Schneider" on 20 Jan 2010 10:02
Michal Varga wrote:

> I'm not a heavy Perl user, but I don't remember anything ever melting
> "too much", while doing it this way. Of course, there are things like
> irssi, that break -every time- you reinstall Perl (even the same
> version), but one gets used to it quickly. Then there is the rest that
> probably only execs some scripts with Perl and doesn't care about your
> versions (much). Majority of your, or mine, installed ports have Perl
> only as an inherited dependency and never directly use it, so -af is a
> bit overkill in such cases, i mean:
>
> pkg_info | wc -l
> 805

Hell!

> So even when you're switching near-major versions, recompiling p5-*
> and maybe some of those in your list (I'd randomly pick, say amavisd,
> bsdpan- and razor) should be enough, the fallout will be minimal, if
> any (and if so, you just rebuild that one more that still fails).
> Nevertheless, your list in't that extensive, recompiling all of it
> shouldn't take more than half an hour, that's still a bit cheaper than
> -af :)

# pkg_info | wc -l
457
#

And this machine is even my package-building station!

Anyway, portupgrade -af took 45 minutes. *g*

# dmesg -a
[...]
CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5420 @ 2.50GHz (2500.10-MHz
K8-class CPU)
Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x10676 Stepping = 6

Features=0xbfebfbff<FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE
,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE>

Features2=0xce3bd<SSE3,DTES64,MON,DS_CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDC
M,DCA,SSE4.1>
AMD Features=0x20000800<SYSCALL,LM>
AMD Features2=0x1<LAHF>
TSC: P-state invariant
real memory = 8589934592 (8192 MB)
avail memory = 8256348160 (7873 MB)
ACPI APIC Table: <IBM SERBLADE>
FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 8 CPUs
FreeBSD/SMP: 2 package(s) x 4 core(s)

--
No Swen today, my love has gone away
My mailbox stands for lorn, a symbol of the dawn

_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: Michal Varga on 20 Jan 2010 10:29
> # pkg_info | wc -l
>     457
> #
>
> And this machine is even my package-building station!
>
> Anyway, portupgrade -af took 45 minutes. *g*
>
Well, it's a dedicated blade after all :) And those 8 cores seem
pretty nasty, I'm envious.

That 800+ installed ports are for a regular desktop system,

CPU: AMD Phenom(tm) 8450 Triple-Core Processor (2109.74-MHz 686-class CPU)
Cores per package: 3

just things like xul/firefox, or webkit alone take an hour to build.
Think of "2 to 3 days" to recompile everything from scratch. And
that's only for a Gnome desktop setup, throw in another KDE
environment to the mix and their family of applications and you can
round that to a week (maybe slightly less if you leave the machine
running completely dedicated). While your blade would cut that time
down considerably, it still wouldn't be in minutes anymore :)

m.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: "Helmut Schneider" on 20 Jan 2010 13:34
Michal Varga wrote:

> > # pkg_info | wc -l
> >     457
> > #
> >
> > And this machine is even my package-building station!
> >
> > Anyway, portupgrade -af took 45 minutes. g
> >
> Well, it's a dedicated blade after all :) And those 8 cores seem
> pretty nasty, I'm envious.

Well, afaik I even cannot use more than one CPU when building ports.
There were plans/rumors that this would change. Does anyone know more
about it?

_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: Boris Kochergin on 20 Jan 2010 13:42
Helmut Schneider wrote:
> Michal Varga wrote:
>
>
>>> # pkg_info | wc -l
>>> 457
>>> #
>>>
>>> And this machine is even my package-building station!
>>>
>>> Anyway, portupgrade -af took 45 minutes. g
>>>
>>>
>> Well, it's a dedicated blade after all :) And those 8 cores seem
>> pretty nasty, I'm envious.
>>
>
> Well, afaik I even cannot use more than one CPU when building ports.
> There were plans/rumors that this would change. Does anyone know more
> about it?
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"
>
It has happened:

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2009-March/053736.html

I believe *dependencies* of a port will be compiled using one process
(and thus CPU) at a time, however.

-Boris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: FreeBSD Port: ocsinventory-ng-1.02.1
Next: INDEX build failed for 6.x