From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 8 13:05:01 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40A5106564A for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:05:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from four.harrisons@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2F48FC0C for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by werl4 with SMTP id l4so376810wer.13 for ; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:04:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=iMApNzBYvZD3C8jrXpjbITkiEB71/awek10w6dN2vNo=; b=qtZGwRaoves7ChV4vdzQsIyWU7Hlg1/XxIOFZRjHZ42Br7/DvYzGihTsv0aXESPIv0 4S98dicHvQIECOord1/umCVGjpJJArsmh+OS7VAAqd7CDZn4okL+kGXzBLMbpMKQK24m sxcXrGSYmGYvlEo0BhZ5vyjnjcx3PtO9aDp7VZ5bjx1pE4NwwXN9n8kQ0VgmXbB9464y 3V8J9IbA08xg4/ke8HhKiWEE6pbVvj0F7qaE4d/UsjZxNQ4q2XAajTnut+u6IBspDoRA fam1TbtDOIyJWacebTddQLOinj13BS44G1RhNQxPYw7QX11z+tPh7XTgDcJbLD3MwPCg KOaQ== Received: by 10.180.86.230 with SMTP id s6mr34855027wiz.16.1331210305933; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 04:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.palm.com ([82.132.249.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gf3sm43740934wib.6.2012.03.08.04.38.22 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Mar 2012 04:38:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4f58a840.a368b40a.7e63.0aad@mx.google.com> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:38:21 +0000 From: "Peter Harrison" To: "David Jackson" , In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Palm webOS Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Subject: RE: Still having trouble with package upgrades X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:05:01 -0000 Da= vid, Sorry for top posting - my 'phone makes it difficult. Do= we really have to have this debate again? You made the same points = a short while ago, and there was a long on-list debate about the strengths = and shortfalls of the existing ports and packages system. I don't se= e what value is added by having that debate again? I have certainly = been able to do binary package updates between releases in the past, so I c= an't agree that it doesn't work at all. Be that as it may, if you ca= n't or won't contribute programming time, money, or server resources to cre= ate the kind of package system you're talking about I don't see how it help= s to continually harangue the user community about your wish to make FreeBS= D work like Debian. Regards, -- Peter Harrison From:= David Jackson Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 16:29 To:<= /b> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Still having trouble w= ith package upgrades I still have yet to find a resolution to= the problems I have had with=0D binary packages and upgrades on FreeBSD= =2E Binary upgrading is broken with=0D every tool I have tried.=0D = =0D There is no real reason why FreeBSD should not provide a facility fo= r users=0D to be able to binary upgrade to the most recent version of al= l packages=0D with a simple upgrade command.=0D =0D One faulty arg= ument I heard was that it is often not a good idea to upgrade=0D to new = software release. The whole purpose of having a release cycle for=0D pro= grams is to provide stable, tested releases for the public to install=0D that will will work properly, and improve upon and fix problems with older= =0D releases. This is why mainline release are differentiated from betas= and=0D the CVS downloads which are experimental. So you really do want = the most=0D recent release, especially for corrections to any security p= roblem. Making=0D upgrades more difficult actually makes the system more= insecure by exposing=0D people for a long time to security problems tha= t were fixed in software but=0D making it difficult for people to upgrad= e.=0D =0D =0D As for the security issues of downloading binary pac= kages. The fact is=0D source packages are not safer than binary packages= , more on that in a bit.=0D I am astonished that people here would not r= ealise the obvious, having safe=0D binary installs is do-able from mirro= r sites, just have the package=0D management software download MD5s from= many mirror sites, compare them and=0D test the downloaded package, is = they are off, then the package will not be=0D installed the user will be= prompted to allow a notification of the problem=0D to be sent to the Fr= eeBSD administrators. The fact is, binary releases are=0D no more danger= ous than source releases, someone could just as easily insert=0D bad cod= e in a source code package on a mirror, you need automated MD5=0D checki= ng anyway, for both binary or source upgrades. So the idea that=0D sourc= e upgrades are safer is false, just dead wrong.=0D =0D As for compile= options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature=0D options and = the most commonly used settings into the binary packages, for=0D the sta= ndard i386 CPU. If people want customisations then they can build=0D the= software for themselves.=0D =0D A good software philosophy is to all= ow software to work out of the box with=0D as little configuration as po= ssible, but allow everything to be configured=0D by the user if they wan= t, by shipping software with reasonable defaults=0D which can be overrid= den by the user. Make simple things easy and=0D complicated things doabl= e. In GUI, by default, complexity can be hidden=0D from users, but if pe= ople want fine grain control, they should be free to=0D use advanced scr= eens of the GUI to get complex, fine grained control. In=0D GUI design, = more commonly used settings can be provided more upfront while=0D advanc= ed features for use by experts can be placed deeper in advanced or=0D ex= pert screens oft the GUI. Everything should be able to be configured or=0D<= br>accomplished by both GUI and CLI and API.=0D =0D A good user frien= dly model for a useable OS is to allow for binary packages=0D of the ent= ire system to be upgraded with a single upgrade command. It=0D should wo= rk out of the box without hassle. Keeping software up to date to=0D rece= nt releases is good practice, remember what I said about the purpose of=0D<= br>software releases. make it easy.=0D =0D why dont the freebsd admin= istrators just have a build machine that=0D automatically compiles the s= oftware and makes them available as the ports=0D are updated.=0D =0D<= br>The user should be able to keep their system up to date without doing a= ny=0D system wide all at once OS-release upgrades at all. There is no re= ason why=0D kernel and userland programs have to be upgraded at the same= time.=0D Especially considering its a good design practice for kernel t= o provide=0D backward compatability. Instead the system would be pieceme= al updated over=0D time, including the kernel, in a piecemeal fashion. T= he need for system=0D wide OS distribution version numbers like FreeBSD = 9.0 is becoming obsolete.=0D Versions are still very valuable for the ke= rnel, but for collections of the=0D entire system software, it has becom= e much less relevant. This was from an=0D age when people would receive= a Tape or CD in the mail and update=0D everything all at once, now soft= ware can be upgraded in a piecemeal way=0D over time with automatic upda= tes. The CD-based upgrade and all at once=0D system wide upgrades actual= ly for reasons are inferior, in that it meant=0D often months would go b= y before a software program was updated, delying the=0D application of v= ital security fixes. Before the age of the internet and the=0D hacker, t= hat may have been acceptable. Its not anymore. With Firefox and=0D Flash= for instance, security fixes are made sometimes weekly, with an=0D syst= em wide at once upgrade model, it could be a very long time between=0D u= pgrades of such software between releases of the OS software distribution= =0D CD. The idea of waiting on a FreeBSD kernel release to upgrade firef= ox is=0D absurd, and the idea that firefox must be upgraded during a ker= nel upgrade=0D is also absurd. The piecemeal model is much more convenie= nt for users,=0D providing more up to date packages and no OS release up= grade hassle.=0D =0D There really should be little reason for release= upgrades anymore these=0D days, when the different parts of the system = can be upgraded independantly=0D through a binary package management too= l, including kernel and user=0D programs.=0D =0D When a new kernel= is released, there is no reason to reinstall all of the=0D packages on = the system at the same time. Since the kernel and userland=0D packages h= ave different development cycles, there is no reason why there=0D has to= be synchronization of the upgrading.=0D =0D Some here suggested PC-B= SD, it was no better at all than FreeBSD, In fact=0D in its documentatio= n it demanded a complete system reinstall just to=0D upgrade to a new ke= rnel version. An OS that requires a user to reinstall=0D everything just= to upgrade the kernel is not user friendly. It creates more=0D trouble = and difficulty for users and ironically makes the system more user=0D un= friendly, and makes these users suffer due to the design faults of the=0Dsystem, a user having to upgrade userland packages for a kernel upgrade i= s=0D a symptom of serious design faults and deficiencies. These two part= s should=0D be able to be upgraded independently and a good system assur= es backwards=0D compatability support so older packages can run on a new= er kernel.=0D =0D For now I have totally given up on FreeBSD, all I h= ad with FreeBSD were=0D problems, big problems. The lack of smooth binar= y upgrades, and the poor=0D virtual box support made it very difficult t= o use.=0D _______________________________________________=0D freebsd-= questions@freebsd.org mailing list=0D http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/l= istinfo/freebsd-questions=0D To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-q= uestions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"=0D