From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 6 14:28:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@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 2AE0546B for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 14:28:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ip-006.utdallas.edu (ip-006.utdallas.edu [129.110.182.16]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtpauth.utdallas.edu", Issuer "COMODO High-Assurance Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB24326AE for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 14:28:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Group: None X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggEAA7PkVOBbgogX2dsb2JhbABZg1+wFI0IhmtRAYEcBBgLAgkHFCiEAwEBAQMBAQEBNQIUIAsFCwsYLicBCRIUBggHBAEcBIgZCA20Ypg8F41+GgEBTweDK4EWBIotjQOEJ5VZHzR8CRcE X-IPAS-Result: AggEAA7PkVOBbgogX2dsb2JhbABZg1+wFI0IhmtRAYEcBBgLAgkHFCiEAwEBAQMBAQEBNQIUIAsFCwsYLicBCRIUBggHBAEcBIgZCA20Ypg8F41+GgEBTweDK4EWBIotjQOEJ5VZHzR8CRcE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,989,1392184800"; d="scan'208";a="26462183" Received: from zxtm01.utdallas.edu (HELO utd71538.utdallas.edu) ([129.110.10.32]) by ip-006.utdallas.edu with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 06 Jun 2014 09:28:14 -0500 Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:28:11 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl Reply-To: Paul Schmehl To: Dewayne Geraghty Subject: Re: Who was the mental genius Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <53916D7E.5030508@heuristicsystems.com.au> References: <20140606090550.0d1a8510@X220.alogt.com> <53916D7E.5030508@heuristicsystems.com.au> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0a1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; size=3957 Cc: Erich Dollansky , FreeBSD Ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 14:28:18 -0000 --On June 6, 2014 at 5:27:58 PM +1000 Dewayne Geraghty wrote: > On 6/06/2014 11:05 AM, Erich Dollansky wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:09:53 -0500 >> Paul Schmehl wrote: >> >>> That decided it was a good idea to completely break ports to force >>> people to upgrade? You couldn't come up with a warning system >>> instead of outright breaking ports? The idiots are apparently >>> running the asylum. {{sigh}} >>> >> this is the reason why I am asking for versions on the ports tree since >> a decade. Ok, we have the revision now. Just go back in the revision >> until it works. It is a good practice to make a note of the revision of >> the running ports tree you have before updating it. >> >> Erich >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >> > Paul, > I would echo Enrich's advise. Occassionally over the last 18 months my > ports tree build (of 487 ports) would fail. A workaround, for me, was > to update the ports tree and then revert /usr/ports/Mk - sometimes I'd > search through the svn logs for a clue, but more recently I'd revert a > week at a time. This being done to get something urgent out of the way > until a PR or fix was acted upon, and the folks supporting ports > meta-system are extremely responsive. Of course if a port needs > something that was changed under /usr/ports/Mk then you'll probably have > to revert the port as well and change the VERSION info as needed - this > is time-consuming and you really need to set aside some time for > testing. Its a real kludge but if you're stuck... > > As I recall the change to ports to use a different make was tied to EOL > for 8.3, seems reasonable though something of a paradigm shift for ol' > timers (I'm a 2.2.5 person) that are used to building ports on a system > long after the base system has been EOL. > > However it does lend itself to the argument that if changes to the ports > system is tied to the base operating system, then the meta-ports ie > /usr/ports/Mk should also. Unfortunately release management of the > ports meta-system, after a decade, remains elusive. Though it should be > noted that preparatory communication is improving - thanks to the team > and Eitan's contributions. > > During some side-conversations I was surprised to learn that there is > some back-porting of fixes taking place in the ports branches ref: > > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/branches/2014Q2/ (thanks to Guido for > bringing that to our attention). So maybe this is your starting point and > svn update the particular ports you require is another option (as a > temporary workaround)? > I appreciate the advice. I've elected to setup an alternate form of backup (using rsync over ssh to backup each server to its sibling) so I can upgrade to 8.4 without worrying about a loss. Once that's complete, I'll get the new backup system in place (using Storgrid backing up to a SAN at the hosting provider). After that I can comfortably move to 9 or 10. I don't like running "bleeding edge" releases on production servers. This work I'm doing is entirely voluntary, for a hobby website with a small budget, so I have to be very careful about not breaking anything. When I installed one of these servers 9 wouldn't even install (missing RAID drivers), which is why I used 8. -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ******************************************* "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell