Building pfSense - Something basic I'm doing wrong?
-
I think I've changed all the references to the internal git repo… I've attached a zip file to this email (named .zip.txt, just rename it when you download it and unzip). It's structured by directory, so just unzip it into your copy of the tools repo. Two files in builder_scripts/ will be replaced, as will two more files under builder_scripts/scripts/
I can't say 100% whether this works yet, but my build sure seems to be getting a lot further.
-
What worked for me is telling the tools to use subversion for the checkout instead of git:
- set USE_SVN to "YES"
- set FREEBSD_REPO_BASE "https://svn0.us-west.freebsd.org/base" (replace "us-west" with another geographical mirror as appropriate)
-
I know hand editing the scripts isn't the most elegant solution, but since ESF just re-opened this late last week, they probably have more work to do to get everything working for people just starting to build their own.
I know they've had dev VM images before, but I'm sure whatever they come up with will be good (even if it's just a walk through on how to build your own system).
-
There is no need to edit scripts people, think smart.
Just use pfsense-build.conf created by set_version.sh to override things. -
I only see a single item to customize in the conf file:
export FREEBSD_REPO_BASE=https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd.gitPerhaps there are other items you can add? I had to change multiple REPOs in the files I uploaded.
So far, my builds have not completed 100% successfully either…
Part of the issue is the varying skill levels of everyone involved. There are some rare individuals that are talented with FreeBSD, networking, and programming. There are many more that are probably even better at individual aspects I mentioned, but have trouble with others.
In my case, I do a lot of PHP programming that's CLI based, mostly for managing (auditing, deploying, etc) the configuration a few thousand switches and almost 900 routers and UTMs. Back about 6 years ago, I contributed several features to the Monowall project, the most visible one was administrative groups that allow users to have granular access to the GUI, which was brought over to pfSense soon after.
In my opinion, the lower the barrier to entry to be able to contribute to pfSense, the better it is for the project.
I feel certain that ESF isn't done with their plans for the development community. I just wish they would share more information with us about what they are planning and give some sort of guidance as to when to expect their plans to come to fruition.
At any rate, I'm going to try to wait for ESF before trying much more to build my own image.
Edited: Just noticed that I now have "-1 Karma". Thanks, whoever apparently doesn't like what I have said.
-
#export FREEBSD_REPO_BASE=git@git.pfmechanics.com:outsidemirrors/freebsd.git
export USE_SVN=YES
export FREEBSD_REPO_BASE=https://svn0.us-west.freebsd.org/base
export GIT_REPO_PFSENSE=${GIT_REPO_PFSENSE:-"git://github.com/pfsense/pfsense.git"} -
Well setup has awlays been easy.
Checkout latest sources and run build.sh –configure it is a GUI that has been always there.
-
Well, it's still impossible to build anything with the "pfsense-tools" repo which is available through the SSH access (2.1.X).
I even tried to backport the ports (through SVN) and pfsense-tools commits from the 10/04/2014 (official 2.1.2 release date) but with even more build ports errors (23 in stand of 4 while trying to build with up to date ports).
I'm pretty sure the pfsense-tools repo which is available through the SSH access is not up to date (no commits since the famous day it has been made available again) … it looks like just a clone made to shut up "annoying" people asking for the sources ... I think the simple fact the git repos are linking to a private and local EFS host can only mean there was no initial plans to make it public in the future, am I wrong ? If so then what was the point doing this (commit b7f866d7340ae723841b40e2c8ccbd5ab18fa9a1 for example) ?
The only thing which could make sense, is that the new pfsense-tools repo can only be used to build 2.2 releases (not yet tried but I bet I'll face to similar build errors).
Let's hope things will soon start moving in the right direction because right now we're all wasting our time, open source is no more meaning anything here (I have the feeling all is done to stop people building by themselves).
PS1: I don't like felating dogs or anything else (just in case ... you'll surely understand why I say that; if not then just give a look to the recent threads from the "development" forum section).
PS2: Even if you don't have any reasons to trust me, I'm not making any money with pfSense BUT I need to customise my personal installations as most people (in order to save precious time) ... is it now such a crime ? -
Well the tools repo has never been for the general people anyway.
Its trying to get better.The internal repos committed there are because of speed on having local repos rather than going to github.
Please stop this 'drama' and ask real questions rather than accusations that do not go nowhere and bring nothing of value. -
@ermal :
It's not a personal complain, I respect and appreciate your work.
The problem is that I (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) can't buid my own customised pfSense release anymore.
If I well understood the problem, it's a matter of money (ESF) … I'm ready to subscribe to what is necessary but I think the minimum is to communicate, and here there are no communications at all (the injuries are all but a kind of communication, providing an useless pfsense-repo doesn't help anyone).
If nothing changes, then the only solution for me (and most people) will be to move to another real Open Source solution ... is it the point ?
If so then just tell it and the "non founded accusations" will be over (sorry for my English, I'm French and learnt English by myself).
The Real question is : If you were me (without dept programming skills), what would you do ? Is it fair providing an Open Source firewall solution which can't be customized ?
Please take the time to think about what I wrote (the human way, not the capitalist way), else I won't waste more time answering.
Best regards,
Cyriles
-
@cyrilles: perhaps you should just ask how to use the repo (and resolve your errors). Instead you let your imagination run wild, with cospiracy theories.
i'm sure someone will one day write up a nice how-to-build-your-trademark-infrigment-free-software-based-on-pf-source-wiki
until then, i propose people to ask answereable questions ;
in other words, show errors, screenshots, useful info | then perhaps someone who uses the tools daily, can provide an answer.but thats just my 2 cents
-
@ermal :
It's not a personal complain, I respect and appreciate your work.
The problem is that I (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) can't buid my own customised pfSense release anymore.
If I well understood the problem, it's a matter of money (ESF) … I'm ready to subscribe to what is necessary but I think the minimum is to communicate, and here there are no communications at all (the injuries are all but a kind of communication, providing an useless pfsense-repo doesn't help anyone).
If nothing changes, then the only solution for me (and most people) will be to move to another real Open Source solution ... is it the point ?
If so then just tell it and the "non founded accusations" will be over (sorry for my English, I'm French and learnt English by myself).
The Real question is : If you were me (without dept programming skills), what would you do ? Is it fair providing an Open Source firewall solution which can't be customized ?
Please take the time to think about what I wrote (the human way, not the capitalist way), else I won't waste more time answering.
Best regards,
Cyriles
I do not take this personal.
Its just you people complain about things not being open source and than complain that they not work.
If you want open source to fix it yourself have fun its there.If you want help on thing stop accusing, imagining things and get real.
What you post is you need help and nothing in that is a direct question to what is wrong, you just complain about 'nonclear' things in your mind.In human way, there have been times when the tools repo has been in very bad shape and no one complained, now that it is in way better position to be understood by general people complains come for policies and not the repository itself.
By the way, I will not answer anything that is not a real question!
-
It looks like git.pfmechanics.com is either down can not handle the traffic it is getting. You can override the pfsense repo URL by setting GIT_REPO_PFSENSE to git@github.com:pfsense/pfsense.git but unfortunately the URL for the BSD installer repo is hard coded to git@git.pfmechanics.com:pfsense/bsdinstaller.git.
-
@kpa:
It looks like git.pfmechanics.com is either down can not handle the traffic it is getting. You can override the pfsense repo URL by setting GIT_REPO_PFSENSE to git@github.com:pfsense/pfsense.git but unfortunately the URL for the BSD installer repo is hard coded to git@git.pfmechanics.com:pfsense/bsdinstaller.git.
I'm not seeing any load issues, and it's been up for 4.5 days:
jim@git:~ % uptime
11:12AM up 4 days, 10:58, 2 users, load averages: 0.39, 0.40, 0.22
jim@git:~ % date
Tue Apr 29 11:12:27 CDT 2014 -
It is not reachable for me. It looks like there's only an IPv6 address for it in DNS, is that right?
drill git.pfmechanics.com ANY ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, rcode: NOERROR, id: 36656 ;; flags: qr rd ra ; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 3 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;; git.pfmechanics.com. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: git.pfmechanics.com. 3470 IN AAAA 2610:160:11:10::20 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: pfmechanics.com. 3470 IN NS ns1.pfmechanics.com. pfmechanics.com. 3470 IN NS ns2.pfmechanics.com. ... -
@ermal:
@ermal :
It's not a personal complain, I respect and appreciate your work.
The problem is that I (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) can't buid my own customised pfSense release anymore.
If I well understood the problem, it's a matter of money (ESF) … I'm ready to subscribe to what is necessary but I think the minimum is to communicate, and here there are no communications at all (the injuries are all but a kind of communication, providing an useless pfsense-repo doesn't help anyone).
If nothing changes, then the only solution for me (and most people) will be to move to another real Open Source solution ... is it the point ?
If so then just tell it and the "non founded accusations" will be over (sorry for my English, I'm French and learnt English by myself).
The Real question is : If you were me (without dept programming skills), what would you do ? Is it fair providing an Open Source firewall solution which can't be customized ?
Please take the time to think about what I wrote (the human way, not the capitalist way), else I won't waste more time answering.
Best regards,
Cyriles
I do not take this personal.
Its just you people complain about things not being open source and than complain that they not work.
If you want open source to fix it yourself have fun its there.If you want help on thing stop accusing, imagining things and get real.
What you post is you need help and nothing in that is a direct question to what is wrong, you just complain about 'nonclear' things in your mind.In human way, there have been times when the tools repo has been in very bad shape and no one complained, now that it is in way better position to be understood by general people complains come for policies and not the repository itself.
By the way, I will not answer anything that is not a real question!
Points:
-
building a customized release of pfSense software (and then distributing it) is only allowed if you do NOT call the result pfSense, and you must otherwise fully comply with the licenses of pfSense. This, in part, requires you to state on all marketing materials that your product is derived from pfSense software
-
if you need help building pfSense, commercial support is available
-
the pfSense repos are not "useless". We use the same repos that you're attempting to use.
-
Ermal has invested a lot of work recently in the '-tools' repo to cut the build time from over 4 hours to under 30 minutes (on our infrastructure, YMMV).
-
-
@kpa:
It is not reachable for me. It looks like there's only an IPv6 address for it in DNS, is that right?
drill git.pfmechanics.com ANY ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, rcode: NOERROR, id: 36656 ;; flags: qr rd ra ; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 3 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;; git.pfmechanics.com. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: git.pfmechanics.com. 3470 IN AAAA 2610:160:11:10::20 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: pfmechanics.com. 3470 IN NS ns1.pfmechanics.com. pfmechanics.com. 3470 IN NS ns2.pfmechanics.com. ...Maybe. It's difficult for me to tell from here.
Posting to the forum isn't the ideal way to inform. In this case, I'll forward it on internally, but a more direct communication about these will serve you well.
(We do not constantly monitor the forums.) -
you're using the wrong host
git.pfsense.org has address 208.123.73.74
https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=76132.0
-
Just FYI, I've added the repos to "git.pfsense.org". The machine "git.pfmechanics.com" is not publicly accessible.
You should be able to clone from the following repo's:
git@git.pfsense.org:bsdinstaller.git
git@git.pfsense.org:pfsense-tools.git
git@git.pfsense.org:xmlrpc-server.git
git@git.pfsense.org:pfsense-packages.gitYou will need to still setup a FreeBSD site to pull from.
If there are other bugs in the scripts, best way is to create a bug report in Redmine, and we'll get it addressed. We're working on ways to speed up builds as gonzopancho noted, part if this is locally mirroring commonly used sources.
-
@kpa:
It looks like git.pfmechanics.com is either down can not handle the traffic it is getting. You can override the pfsense repo URL by setting GIT_REPO_PFSENSE to git@github.com:pfsense/pfsense.git but unfortunately the URL for the BSD installer repo is hard coded to git@git.pfmechanics.com:pfsense/bsdinstaller.git.
Fixed, can be overwritten now.