From owner-freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 2 02:40:03 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: pkg@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CC32209; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 02:40:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 455B71363; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 02:40:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from julian-mbp3.pixel8networks.com (50-196-156-133-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.196.156.133]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s822e0Pt018262 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Sep 2014 19:40:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <54052DFA.4030808@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 19:39:54 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Berg , Michelle Sullivan , "Sam Fourman Jr." Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool References: <20140901195520.GB77917@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <54050D07.4010404@sorbs.net> <540522A3.9050506@sorbs.net> <54052891.5000104@my.hennepintech.edu> In-Reply-To: <54052891.5000104@my.hennepintech.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, pkg@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Current X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 02:40:03 -0000 On 9/1/14, 7:16 PM, Andrew Berg wrote: > On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote: >>>> And for the portsnap users? >>>> >>> In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users. >>> >> Sure about that? > I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to fetch it. > >> Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then install >> pkg on it... Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, and 9.2 >> install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS.... > Use the ports tree tarball included, or fetch it (either during or after > installation). It is not impossible to get an old version of the ports tree > with only the 9.2 base system. I don't see how this is anything more than an > inconvenience. > Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be > doing a new install with 9.2. sigh.. when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in business is that you often need to install stuff that is old. Its not always your choice. The custommers require it.. You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and operations department some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade 300 machines for no real reason (from their perspective). On that topic, 10.0 is slightly broken from that perspective because as you install it, it upgrades pkg to a new version that was not in 10.0, so you can no longer build a 10.0 machine that matches the 10.0 machines you installed at the custommer site when 10.0 first came out, that they qualified as acceptible.. Well you MAY get the mostly same result, but the 'pkg' you have is a different one so the image checks out as different' (Imaginary hooters sound and theoretical security alerts trigger etc.) (oh and it interacts badly with the installer designed to run with the previous version.. The first part of the install works fine, and then half way through the install, things go strange when pkg upgrades itself.) 10.0 is past but we should think about how to prevent that in 10.1 etc. I guess the pkg config file in the install needs to be locked down to the release until the install is completed. We should make sure the base install only installs the pkg in the release and doesn't upgrade itself without asking first... (luckily that last issue doesn't affect most business customers who use their own install schemes). > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >