Created attachment 154452 [details] shar file for port riak-erlang (required for installing databases/riak2) Basho's patched version of Erlang to install Riak 2.0 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198517
lang/erlang-runtime15 is specifically for databases/riak There's no other reason for it to exist. So bashio is causing 2 additional erlang ports (one for databases/riak and another for databases/riak2) A question I will ask on riak2 is if it is suppose to be a new port or an update of an existing port. If the latter, then one of these erlangs should be removed (or this should replace the 15 version)
This is the main reason of creating this port: We strongly recommend using Basho's patched version of Erlang to install Riak 2.0. All of the patches in this version have been incorporated into later versions of the official Erlang/OTP release. ...If you do not use this version, you will not be able to use Riak's security features. src: http://docs.basho.com/riak/latest/ops/building/installing/erlang/
Can you re-read my question? We have an erlang for riak (1). If we *REPLACE* riak (1) with riak (2), then we should *REPLACE* erlang too, not create a new port. I have asked about why we need two versions of riak in the other PR.
riak1 works deferent than riak2 There is no simple upgrade, thats why riak2 needs a custom erlang (don't ask why, read or ask bashio about this) I know is not the proper "BSD way" but I am not bashio or either a riak developer, I just made a port that could offer riak2 on the ports system. Please tell me what could I do to improve this port, for more questions related to riak go to #riak on freenode, they can explain why they use a custom erlang version with more detail.
You don't seem to understand either of my comments. I do not know how to reword it. All I can offer is this: if riak2 replaces riak1 you either delete lang/erlang-runtime15 or replace it with this version. Is it clear now?
What part you don't understand from this: 8<-- We strongly recommend using Basho's patched version of Erlang to install Riak 2.0. All of the patches in this version have been incorporated into later versions of the official Erlang/OTP release. ...If you do not use this version, you will not be able to use Riak's security features. 8<-- lang/erlang-runtime15 is not Bashio'2 patched version. lang/erlang-runtime15 != riak-erlang Again: It is strongly recommended to use Basho's patched version of Erlang to compile/install riak 2.X riak-erlang is for riak2 port Please don't confuse with riak1 Again: riak1 != riak2 Got it, if not, please explain why you want to use lang/erlang-runtime15 for riak2? Are you sure all riak2 functionalities work with that port ? If you don't mind please reply with something more constructive in order to continue forward with this, my only goal is to be available to install riak2.0.5 from the ports system with all its functionalities, so if you have a better idea please let me know and work on it, talking is just cheap...
You don't have it at all. Did I say use erlang-runtime15 for riak2? NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. Did I say that erlang-runtime15 is only used for riak1? YES YES YES YES Did I say that instead of creating databases/riak2 that databases/riak1 could be updated to be version 2? yes ============ IF THAT HAPPENS ================== A) erlang-runtime15 should be deleted (it's not needed anymore) or B) if basho's erlang is based on erlang15, it should be changed to the contents of this PR. (why create a second erlang15 port when you can just update existing one) =============================================== Is this really so hard to grasp?
Please forgive my ignorance but you are at level that I just can't follow, is very difficult for me understand all your stuff, while for me this this seems to be extremely simple. I just tried to create/share a FreeBSD port to install riak 2, my goal is to have a port so that me an others can compile it and benefit from it. I was told on #bsdports to create a riak-erlang now seems that is a bad idea, anyway I hope later someone with "time" and more "expertise" could explain or at least help to contribute making the port.
(In reply to nbari from comment #8) > Please forgive my ignorance but you are at level that I just can't follow, is > very difficult for me understand all your stuff, while for me this this seems > to be extremely simple. Honestly, it's because you are not listening to what I'm saying. You have your idea, and you keep pushing your idea instead of listening to what is being said. I *know* what you idea is, you don't need to keep repeating it. > I just tried to create/share a FreeBSD port to install riak 2, my goal is to > have a port so that me an others can compile it and benefit from it. And before that can happen, you need to justify having two riak ports in the tree. I hear you *want* two ports, but I haven't heard why the FreeBSD *needs* two port. > I was told on #bsdports to create a riak-erlang now seems that is a bad idea, > anyway I hope later someone with "time" and more "expertise" could explain or > at least help to contribute making the port. It's not a bad idea if it's required. There is already precedent for this with databases/riak. lang/erlang-runtime15 only exists for riak. If riak is deleted, then erlang-runtime15 can be deleted. I have no object to having riak-erlang for riak2.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #9) 1. The current maintainer seems to not be interested on riak2 2. My ports works only for riak 2, without breaking riak 1, riak1 != riak2, they are different. try to think/see this like the lang/phpX port at the end is all php but they offer different features. 3. riak2 needs custom source from bashio (I can't change that) therefor I can't use an existing erlang port. If I am wrong or it is not clear to you, please explain me with more detail what is, that makes things more complicated? like I say I really don't understand why to many hassle for something extremely easy to solve from my point of view. Maybe because of this lack of flexibility, Bashio invested more time creating a pkg rather than a port, I really I don't know, but like I said, I just would like to learn and if possible help having a port, at least some code is made and is working, the rest depends more on users with more experience.
(In reply to nbari from comment #10) > 1. The current maintainer seems to not be interested on riak2 I've addressed this several times now. I said it's possible the current maintainer of databases/riak would transfer the port's maintainership to you. This is not a show-stopper. > 2. My ports works only for riak 2, without breaking riak 1, > riak1 != riak2, they are different. try to think/see this like > the lang/phpX port at the end is all php but they offer different features. I've asked this question several times now, and you still haven't answered it. Is riak2 backwards compatible? This means, can riak2 import a riak database and work? There are no ports that use riak in the tree right now. You are talking about a future port. I am saying: upgrade databases/riak to version 2, and then your future ports would use database/riak. Where is the problem? The only thing that I can see that requires 2 riak ports is if there are out-of-tree ports that have to have riak1 and cannot use riak2 (which would mean it's an extremely poorly designed database but possible) > 3. riak2 needs custom source from bashio (I can't change that) therefor > I can't use an existing erlang port. As I have now explained erlang to you no less than 3 times, it's amazing to me that you just said that. It means you aren't comprehending anything I'm saying. > If I am wrong or it is not clear to you, please explain me with more detail > what is, that makes things more complicated? like I say I really don't > understand why to many hassle for something extremely easy to solve from my > point of view. It seems to be a waste of time to keep "explaining" things. You aren't getting what I've been saying. I am not the one that is "unclear". > Maybe because of this lack of flexibility, Bashio invested more time creating > a pkg rather than a port, I really I don't know, but like I said, I just > would like to learn and if possible help having a port, at least some code > is made and is working, the rest depends more on users with more experience. ports is not an educational sandbox. We don't create unnecessary ports that will someday need to be maintained because the maintainer leaves. After all these comments, I still have been been told why databases/riak cannot be upgraded to version 2 (other than the current maintainer won't do it). Can you find a web page that explicitly says riak2 is not backwards compatible with riak1 so that I'll know for sure?
http://docs.basho.com/riakcs/latest/cookbooks/installing/Installing-Riak-CS/ Riak CS incompatible with Riak 2.0 Riak CS cannot currently be used with Riak versions 2.0 and later. A version compatibility table can be found immediately below. What is "CS" ? also: http://docs.basho.com/riakcs/latest/cookbooks/Version-Compatibility/ what does this mean?
Riak CS is different from Riak 2 (a riakcs port could be made) CS = cloud storage http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+riak+cs Riak CS is like similar to amazon S3 more about it: http://basho.com/riak-cloud-storage/ more about about riak1 vs riak2: http://basho.com/tag/riak-2-0/
is databases/riak currently being used for riakCS conceivably? If so, that would push towards a requirement to have two separate ports. But I have to think RiakCS would soon have compatibility for riak 2.0 as well.
Yes Riak CS depends on riak 1X http://docs.basho.com/riakcs/latest/cookbooks/installing/Installing-Riak-CS/ I really don't know if it will be compatibility with riak 2, maybe they end merging riak 1 with riak cs.
Since I don't know this software, I don't really know what this means. 1) the webpage says "currently", so what is true today may not be true tomorrow 2) the webpage implies that riakCS requires riak to be installed as "nodes". Since riakCS doesn't exist in ports, that implies the compatibility link between riak and riakCS is not important. I keep thinking of this as a "database", something that can export and import data. I guess I will have to ask Robak if two ports are justified because I'm just not getting the answer here.
Any update on this ?
This is the update: 1) robak is very much against riak2 due to basho's policies, attitudes, and frankly their engineering. 2) now established: riak2 cannot replace databases/riak 3) the riak2 dependencies are heavy and undesireable 4) basho claims they already provide freebsd binary packages 5) therefore, the only way riak2 is getting in via ports is as a wrapper to install basho's binaries. I don't think anyone wants this built by source. It could be a port that installs provided binaries though. Also: nobody has taken this ticket. I'm only responding as a bystander and I'll probably drop off it.
This PR seems dead; nbari doesn't seem to like the idea of wrapping provided binaries so it is at an impasse.
ports committed lang/erlang-riak and databses/riak2, last night. riak cs and stanchion will follow in the next few days.