Thanks for pointing me at this thread Bryan. *subscribes*I've had builds for FreeBSD 10.x-CURRENT, 9.x-STABLE working for a long while and they seem to work well. I haven't worked with 8.x at all as I don't use it. I also had a working build for NetBSD.The 10 month old omnibus-ruby PR#7 has the stuff to build FreeBSD packages. It would need to be srsly rebased of course as 10 months is ages these days.. omnibus-software PR#2 created working builds 10 months ago, its mostly just setting up CFLAGs and judicious use of gmake. omnibus-chef PR#2 just changes the shebang to use /usr/bin/env so the postinstall/rm scripts work as-advertised when installing via pkg_add and pkg_delete.If there is interest i can rebase the commits and verify the builds, im not sure if the stuff i have pushed up to github is before or after the full switch over to clang/llvm, pretty sure it is but I'd have to check. If not it is just moar cflag munging if i recall correctly.the good news is it works without issue on 10.x, used as a daily workstation for a year or more. I'm now lost in ubuntu land for the time being :( :) :/ so it may be good therapy for me to get these updated.fwiw even if the libc abi changed on FreeBSD you could just target 8.x and require compat-libc packages. the old abi will still be there..it builds on netbsd x86/amd64 with essentially the same config and i would assume openbsd follows suit although i have not tested it..if Scott has working, more recent builds then it is probably best to PR those and work forward from there.Cheers,BrandonOn Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Sean OMeara < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Hi Scott
I was referring to any extra-pristine-tarball patches you would need
to compile individual pieces from the omnibus-software project.
(ncurses, openssl, ruby, etc)
-s
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Scott Sanders < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
> Sean,
>
> Historically, I have built my FreeBSD base boxes using the latest available
> ISO media without running freebsd-update to pull in patches. The userland
> starts as binary packages from the -stable package site, but this is
> replaced after portsnap finishes and the minimal packages needed for a
> vagrant basebox are built.
>
> Not sure if thats the patch set you were referring to, or if I'm mistaken.
>
> Also, I just got to BOS a few hours ago for Monitorama. I believe Pete is in
> town too. If anyone wants to grab a drink and hack on this, let me know!
>
> -Scott
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Sean OMeara < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
>>
>> Not sure if you guys got this working yet, but I did a port to SmartOS
>> (base64 1.8.4) a while back and ran into some of the same issues I'd
>> imagine you would on BSD
>>
>> Check out the last comment on this ticket.
>> http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-2576
>>
>> Pretty much all those patches are to fix C compilation issues with GCC
>> 4.7 being strict about function prototype mismatches.
>> (int foo / void foo)
>>
>> I'm not sure how LLVM/Clang will behave.
>>
>> Another topic is BTM brought up is do we want to apply all patches to
>> all OS builds?
>> Or keep a "minimum viable patch set" set for each platform?
>>
>> -s
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Pete Cheslock < " target="_blank"> >
>> wrote:
>> > Yea - I think that would work. That would mean that we assume what
>> > works on
>> > 9.1 will likely work on 9.0? Probably similarly for 8.3, 8.2, etc.
>> >
>> > Unless we just "say" technically only support for 8.3 and 9.1 and if it
>> > works on other versions, great.
>> >
>> > -Pete
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Scott Sanders < " target="_blank"> >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The omnibus-chef rake task spits out installable shell scripts like
>> >> this:
>> >> chef-11.4.0_0.freebsd.9.1-RELEASE.sh
>> >>
>> >> I believe I will adjust the installer name to something like
>> >> "chef-11.4.0_0.freebsd.9.amd64.sh" so the install.sh script can select
>> >> the
>> >> correct architecture. This also simplifies the naming so we don't need
>> >> separate packages for 9.0-RELEASE, 9.1-RC3, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >>
>> >> -Scott
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Miller < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I am on the list. =)
>> >>>
>> >>> The OpenBSD LWRPs (just Service & Package) are pretty close to the
>> >>> FreeBSD counterparts in chef-core but they do not work directly on
>> >>> openbsd.
>> >>> I tried. There are subtle differences in how each handles rc.d and the
>> >>> pkg_*
>> >>> commands were also slightly different.
>> >>>
>> >>> Additionally I did not support compiling from ports in the
>> >>> Openbsd::Package provider as the FreeBSD appears to support.
>> >>>
>> >>> Getting chef 11.x to run on openbsd was pretty easy. I first looked at
>> >>> building an omnibus pkg on openbsd but that had all the looks of a
>> >>> major yak
>> >>> shave. So I went with a simple install of ruby193 from pkg followed by
>> >>> a gem
>> >>> install of Chef. It worked great.
>> >>>
>> >>> It would be pretty interesting to get openbsd omnibus builds going.
>> >>> Scott
>> >>> and other's work on omnibus-freebsd builds may be a good starting
>> >>> point.
>> >>> Whatever patches openbsd's ports includes for the ruby193 package are
>> >>> also
>> >>> probably going to be pretty useful.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Pete Cheslock
>> >>> < " target="_blank"> >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Awesome - I know Joe Miller, who may or not be on this list, has done
>> >>>> some work around chef and openbsd - but I believe many of the
>> >>>> resources he's
>> >>>> written are almost the same as would work on FreeBSD.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://github.com/joemiller/chef-openbsd
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Scott probably knows better there - i think he has a similar set of
>> >>>> lwrp's for FreeBSD, and i know I would love to see them make their
>> >>>> way into
>> >>>> chef core (and will be happy to do any testing needed).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Pete
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Scott Sanders
>> >>>> < " target="_blank"> >
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I will publish the Bento definitions and vagrant base boxes for
>> >>>>> freebsd
>> >>>>> 9.1 amd64/i386 shortly. Adding 8.x shouldn't be much work from
>> >>>>> there.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The omnibus builds I have work on FreeBSD, but the omnibus repo
>> >>>>> requires a handful of extra tweaks to get the cookbooks working to
>> >>>>> provision
>> >>>>> the vagrant build box correctly. It appears to mostly be updating
>> >>>>> package
>> >>>>> names.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The ruby build step for omnibus requires a custom patch I added to
>> >>>>> disable libexecinfo, since the autoconf scripts for libexecinfo
>> >>>>> hardcode the
>> >>>>> LDFLAGS to point to /usr/local instead of the desired /opt/chef
>> >>>>> prefix.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Follow along on the freebsd branches of the following forks:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://github.com/jssjr/bento
>> >>>>> https://github.com/jssjr/omnibus-ruby
>> >>>>> https://github.com/jssjr/omnibus-chef
>> >>>>> https://github.com/jssjr/omnibus-software
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'm very excited to see some interest in Chef on FreeBSD!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Scott Sanders | Tech Operations | 803.767.0060 |
>> >>>>> @scott_sanders
>> >>>>> taximagic : http://taximagic.com | sedanmagic :
>> >>>>> http://sedanmagic.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Bryan McLellan < " target="_blank"> >
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We're planning on adding Omnibus builds for FreeBSD. I know Pete
>> >>>>>> Cheslock, Scott Sanders and Brandon Martin have worked on this, is
>> >>>>>> anyone
>> >>>>>> else out there working on it?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I'm presuming that libc changed between 8.x and 9.x, so we'll need
>> >>>>>> four builds, one for 32-bit and one for 64-bit on both 8.x and 9.x
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ---
>> >>>>>> Bryan McLellan | opscode | technical program manager, open source
>> >>>>>> (c) 206.607.7108 | (t) @btmspox | (b) http://blog.loftninjas.org
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>
>
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.