You are not logged in.

#51 2012-10-27 14:01:09

Amzo2
Member
Registered: 2012-06-02
Posts: 50

Re: Arch-BSD

Well, due to recent changes, most PKGBUILDS from Aur are working, some are needing patches added to work. Though, overall they are working fine.

amzo@Bahamut:~/test/tzdata/trunk$ makepkg -f
==> Making package: tzdata 2012g-1 (Sat Oct 27 14:59:53 BST 2012)
==> Checking runtime dependencies...
==> Checking buildtime dependencies...
==> Retrieving Sources...
  -> Found tzdata2012g.tar.gz
==> Validating source files with sha1sums...
    tzdata2012g.tar.gz ... Passed
==> Extracting Sources...
  -> Extracting tzdata2012g.tar.gz with bsdtar
==> Removing existing pkg/ directory...
==> Entering fakeroot environment...
==> Starting package()...
==> Tidying install...
  -> Purging unwanted files...
  -> Compressing man and info pages...
  -> Stripping unneeded symbols from binaries and libraries...
  -> Removing empty directories...
==> Creating package...
  -> Generating .PKGINFO file...
  -> Compressing package...
==> Leaving fakeroot environment.
==> Finished making: tzdata 2012g-1 (Sat Oct 27 15:00:09 BST 2012)

Using the GNU userland has saved a lot of work, and using patches from the debian trunk.

I'm hoping to have a test ISO completed soon.

Last edited by Amzo2 (2013-02-23 04:19:53)

Offline

#52 2012-10-27 14:20:57

simon.swe
Member
From: sverige
Registered: 2012-02-26
Posts: 148
Website

Offline

#53 2012-10-28 03:01:54

Amzo2
Member
Registered: 2012-06-02
Posts: 50

Re: Arch-BSD

Well I got quite a bit done on base today: Here are my results.

ArchBSD
=======

A FreeBSD based distro, using Arch Linux tools.

ArchBSD uses the FreeBSD kernel with the GNU userland. 

Current PKGBUILD REMOVED FROM CORE
=======

bridge-utils
btrfs-progs
crda
cryptsetup
dmraid



Current PKGBUILD FAILS! Need patching
=======

Acl
Attr
b43-fwcutter
binutils
dbus-core
dhcpcd
dnsutils

Current PKGBUILD SUCCESS
=======

ArchBSD Keyring
GNU Autoconf 2.69
Bash 4.2
fakeroot 1.18.4
Bison 2.6.4-1
bzip2 1.0.6-4
ca-certificates 20120623-1
cloog 0.17.0-2
cracklib 2.8.19-1
cronie 1.4.8-3
coreutils 8.20-1
curl 7.28.0-1
dash 0.5.7-2
db 5.3.21-1
dialog 1.1_20120706-1
diffutils 3.2-1
dnssec-anchors 20120422-1
dirmngr 1.1.0-4
e2fsprogs 1.42.5-1
ed 1.6-1
eventlog 0.2.12-3
expat 2.1.0-1

Last edited by Amzo2 (2012-10-28 03:03:06)

Offline

#54 2012-12-04 12:33:20

semeion
Member
From: Brazil
Registered: 2008-10-20
Posts: 55

Re: Arch-BSD

Still wating for ArchBSD ;D [2]
i will love this [2]

Offline

#55 2012-12-13 00:59:02

Amzo2
Member
Registered: 2012-06-02
Posts: 50

Re: Arch-BSD

I'm hoping to have a finished ISO by January.

What was being time consuming was making PKGBUILDS to build packages, this is because a lot of software, needs patching for FreeBSD, specific compile flags and so fourth.

Today, I came up with a nice little plan to get around this, I patched makepkg to still use PKGBUILDS, but also work with FreeBSD ports as this takes care of all the environment variables, patching etc.

I also patched the source tree and kernel source to show the arch as x86_64 and i686 respectively.

[amzo@Bahamut ~/ArchBSD/core/libarchive]$ uname -m
x86_64

And a sample of a new PKGBUILD using some makepkg patches:

pkgname=libarchive
pkgver=3.0.4
pkgrel=1
pkgepoch=1
category=archivers
pkgdesc="library that can create and read several streaming archive formats"
arch=('i686' 'x86_64')
url="http://libarchive.googlecode.com/"
license=('BSD')
depends=('libiconv' 'libxml2' 'pkgconf')

build() {
     cd "$portsdir/$category/$pkgname"
     make
     make package PACKAGES="$srcdir"
     make deinstall

}

package() {
  cd "$pkgdir"
  tar xpf "${srcdir}/${category}/${pkgname}-${pkgver}_${pkgrel},${pkgepoch}.txz"
}

This saves on hundred of lines of patching source code, setting up flags, variables etc, so now things should move more quickly.

Last edited by Amzo2 (2012-12-13 01:40:32)

Offline

#56 2013-01-23 17:17:20

Nowaker
Member
From: Gdańsk, Poland
Registered: 2011-10-26
Posts: 16
Website

Re: Arch-BSD

How is it going? Where's the ISO? :P Good job mate, keep on working.

How are you going to resolve licensing problems? Will everything be released as GPL? Or you are going to have a really small BSD-licensed core, and all GPL will be installed later by network? I am asking because I am wondering if ZFS support is going to be included. Actually it's the most valuable feature of FreeBSD for me. (Should ZFS be stable and ready for production use in Linux, I would quit using FreeBSD where reliable storage is a number-one requirement - and that's why I keep FreeBSD on some of my servers)

Next thing, what is the aim for ArchBSD in the long run? Is it having the same package names and reusing the same PKGBUILDs? Or you want to have another BSD which will use pacman and custom, self-written PKGBUILDs? Please elaborate. This is very important if you take a look at the Trademark Policy. You may have problems keeping your invented name if you choose the way where your changes are not "minimal and unsubstantial". Or trademark holders will be good-hearted and allow you to use ArchBSD just like FreeBSD guys allowed Debians to use Debian-kFreeBSD. ;)

Amzo2 wrote:

Systemd should work fine with very little problems, and the new install script should be no problem either.

I thought systemd will be the biggest problem here. Good to hear it's not. (By the way, now that we have systemd in Arch, one could say FreeBSD complies with The Arch Way more than Arch itself ;))

BTW - Nice artwork. Those devil horns inside the "A" rock! :)

Offline

#57 2013-04-29 00:03:46

Multimoon
Member
From: /usr/share/zoneinfo/US/Eastern
Registered: 2012-09-30
Posts: 168

Re: Arch-BSD

I have a old friend, who I constantly argue over the benefits and drawbacks of linux and BSD with. I don't know what it is that makes me like Arch so much, maybe the constant knowledge of everything my system is, and will be. He is a great fan of NetBSD, and has his own reasons that are most likely similar to mine. So in a effort that we wanted to for once agree on something, he showed me a project he found who knows where, ArchBSD. From what I can discerne, it is literally the Archlinux tools (Pacman, etc) running on the FreeBSD kernel. This intrigued me, so I downloaded a ISO, havent gotten around to burning and or trying it yet. I just found it interesting that someone would try this (As in Arch + BSD).
For anyone interested in looking at it, it's website is located here.
I honestly don't know if I should like it, or insult it, I don't even know and or understand how much 'Arch' it actually is. I just found it interesting, and a plan to occupy my free time tomorrow.
--EDIT--
It also looks VERY new, as there is very few posts in their forums.

Last edited by Multimoon (2013-04-29 00:04:57)


It always makes me laugh when people complain and rage over any distro's management ideal, when this is a linux community, and you could always make your own distro and experience the pains yourself.

Offline

#58 2013-04-29 00:05:55

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 6,790

Re: Arch-BSD

Not exactly sure how this is GNU/Linux Discussion, Off-Topic at best, since it seems to be basically "hey here's something cool".

Having said that, if its at all active and up-to-date I'm sure a workable day-to-day system is possible (assuming supported hardware).


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

#59 2013-04-29 00:08:30

Multimoon
Member
From: /usr/share/zoneinfo/US/Eastern
Registered: 2012-09-30
Posts: 168

Re: Arch-BSD

ngoonee wrote:

Not exactly sure how this is GNU/Linux Discussion, Off-Topic at best, since it seems to be basically "hey here's something cool".

Having said that, if its at all active and up-to-date I'm sure a workable day-to-day system is possible (assuming supported hardware).

Off-Topic may have worked, but seeing as it is based off of Archlinux, and somehow tries to bring that to BSD, I felt it was appropriate for GNU/Linux.
I'll post again tomorrow when I figure out what exactly it even is, and how it accomplishes Arch+BSD.


It always makes me laugh when people complain and rage over any distro's management ideal, when this is a linux community, and you could always make your own distro and experience the pains yourself.

Offline

#60 2013-04-29 04:05:48

x33a
Forum Moderator
Registered: 2009-08-15
Posts: 3,248
Website

Re: Arch-BSD

@ Multimoon, there a dedicated thread for that.

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=142679

Offline

#61 2013-04-29 04:08:14

jasonwryan
Forum & Wiki Admin
From: .nz
Registered: 2009-05-09
Posts: 18,329
Website

Re: Arch-BSD

x33a wrote:

@ Multimoon, there a dedicated thread for that.

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=142679

Merging...


Arch + dwm   •   Mercurial repos  •   Github

Registered Linux User #482438

Offline

#62 2013-04-29 12:52:00

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 2,963

Re: Arch-BSD

I haven't tried it yet, but I've thought that installing *BSD and then downloading and installing pacman and its' dependencies like with installing Arch from an existing Linux, but I was thinking about this for PXE purposes.  But then *BSDs don't support my wireless card all that well.

The ArchBSD site says I can install it from a current installation of Arch, but not if it requires adding zfs support to the kernel, by the way of AUR, so it's a little trickier than that.  Looks like making a CD is the only way for now.

Last edited by nomorewindows (2013-04-29 14:04:06)


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Online

#63 2013-10-19 14:03:15

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 2,963

Re: Arch-BSD

How did you get pacman to compile?  I can't get it to compile through on any *BSDs?


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Online

#64 2013-10-19 22:14:34

Allan
Developer
From: Brisbane, AU
Registered: 2007-06-09
Posts: 10,365
Website

Re: Arch-BSD

nomorewindows wrote:

How did you get pacman to compile?  I can't get it to compile through on any *BSDs?

Can you provide details?  It should work on all BSD/OSX.

Offline

#65 2013-10-20 00:48:43

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 2,963

Re: Arch-BSD

Allan wrote:
nomorewindows wrote:

How did you get pacman to compile?  I can't get it to compile through on any *BSDs?

Can you provide details?  It should work on all BSD/OSX.

I figured it should being a *NIX.  I use the BSDs pkg_add to get all the autoconf and I start with ./autogen.sh.  It gets so far through the compile and get different errors (I'll have to flip back to BSD to see where it stops).  I had to start by commenting out a line in the makefile to get it to start the compile.  It didn't like one of the -- items.  Possibly that I'm still missing some library or compiler or something.  Then the next error I remember was stopping at makepkg.


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Online

#66 2013-10-20 01:36:07

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 2,963

Re: Arch-BSD

The first error I get is for make --no-print-directory all-recursive.  It doesn't like --no-print-directory for whatever reason.  This is commented out for the line AM_MAKEFLAGS in the makefile.  Then when I make, I stop at makepkg: No such file or directory and this is apparently under pacman/scripts.  Would the AM have something to do with makepkg failing?  Something tells me that AM stands for automake, which doesn't appear to do anything, but does prevent compiling.

Last edited by nomorewindows (2013-10-20 01:44:55)


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Online

#67 2013-10-20 01:58:32

Allan
Developer
From: Brisbane, AU
Registered: 2007-06-09
Posts: 10,365
Website

Re: Arch-BSD

Are you using gmake?

Offline

#68 2013-10-20 13:16:25

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 2,963

Re: Arch-BSD

Allan wrote:

Are you using gmake?

Even though the concept of GNU make wouldn't be unusual, I've never heard of gmake.  I guess because it's not in Arch repos.  It sure is in the BSD repos however.


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Online

#69 2013-10-20 13:46:36

Allan
Developer
From: Brisbane, AU
Registered: 2007-06-09
Posts: 10,365
Website

Re: Arch-BSD

gmake is gnu make.  make on BSDs is "bmake".

Offline

#70 2013-10-20 13:52:55

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 2,963

Re: Arch-BSD

Allan wrote:

gmake is gnu make.  make on BSDs is "bmake".

Haven't heard of that one either, but the BSDs make their own products which each BSD borrows from the other.  OpenSSH is one such example.  It was something that OpenBSD derived of the SSH standard to support their operating system's security mission.  Of course, now it's used by everybody.  They must have much fun tweaking the BSDs.


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Online

#71 2013-10-20 21:08:08

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 2,963

Re: Arch-BSD

Gmake maked the day, and then it was wanting a2x, which it more or less going to make those man-pages, but a2x was the asciidoc.  Now I can enjoy BSDs and ArchLinux.


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Online

#72 2013-10-20 22:11:14

Earnestly
Member
Registered: 2011-08-18
Posts: 804

Re: Arch-BSD

Yes, gmake is the common name when refering to GNU make and bmake for BSD likewise.  See ##workingset on freenode for more advice relating to build systems of various kinds.

Offline

#73 2013-10-20 23:13:40

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 2,963

Re: Arch-BSD

Bmake gave me the same error messages as regular make, but gmake compiled the complete thing.  But regular make should work on other distro linux when making pacman?


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Online

#74 2013-10-21 01:24:39

Allan
Developer
From: Brisbane, AU
Registered: 2007-06-09
Posts: 10,365
Website

Re: Arch-BSD

bmake and make are probably the exact same binary on BSD, if not a symlink.   All Linux distributions use gnu make as their make, so there will be no issues there.

Offline

#75 2013-10-21 02:42:43

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 2,963

Re: Arch-BSD

Allan wrote:

bmake and make are probably the exact same binary on BSD, if not a symlink.   All Linux distributions use gnu make as their make, so there will be no issues there.

I installed them as separate packages, but who knows?


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Online

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB