OpenBSD Journal

Call for Testers: Ports and Packages

Contributed by jose on from the freeze-time dept.

P. Valchev recently announced a ports tree freeze in anticipation of the release of 3.2. This means that no new ports can be put in, but we do need to assist in testing ports and packages. Testing needs to be done of the ports tree to ensure that dependencies are OK and the distfiles work ok, for example. Packages also need to be tested to ensure that their handle dependencies correctly and install as needed. Snapshots of the packages for vaarious architectures have been announced .

So, if you want to try and make the 3.2 release as good as possible, please help by testing the snapshots out!

(Comments are closed)

  1. By Andy () on

    Does anyone know if the sources will be fixed? I have a lot of failed checksums due to their untimely reorganization of all their downloads. Very rude of them to do such a thing in my opinion.

  2. By fansipans () fansipans AT on

    so this means i really should have taken the time to submit my port for postgresql 7.2.2? poop. well has anybody else whacked together a port for the best free rdbms around? i should really post this to -ports i guess, or just submit the damn thing... just wondering out loud late this eve

  3. By Jedi/Sector One () on

    So does it mean no Mozilla port for OpenBSD 3.2?

  4. By Too Lazy To Get an Account () on

    This article reminded me of the fact I've *never* installed anything from the ports tree. I've installed a few packages when it suited me, or couldn't get the distributed source code to go for some reason.

    I just do everything, including Apache and PHP, from scratch (well, from autoconf scratch, anyway). I guess I do this because of how badly I got spanked by RPMs under Linux (I only run apt-get via fink on OS X, so I can't comment). I know that RPMs are more like packages, in that they pretty much only provide precompiled binaries. I suppose RPM source installs are more like Ports...

    I've had to get a FreeBSD box set up at work, and have done everything via the Ports tree. I must admit, seeing stuff autoconfigure and compile fills me with a certain amount of well-being. It looks like it's being done right. I'm just untrusting by nature, I guess. I do a "make all install clean" and go home. In the morning, things just work.

    Anyway, I keep my OBSD pretty stock, except for the occasional library I need (and, like I said, I have a _very_ specific way I like Apache built). Is the Ports tree as large and well-organized as the FreeBSD ones? Wouldn't a lot of Port installs make your OBSD box less and less secure, as you add more libraries and apps that can be exploited?

    Of course, I don't even run X on OBSD, so I'm assuming those who use the ports tree a lot are those who also do not rely on that particular OBSD box being a secure box.

    I suppose I could build a bleeding edge cvsup box based on 3.2 and see how things work under OBSD, but my little edge box will likely never see /usr/ports.


Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]