From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 3 20:55:53 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E4EF106566C; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:55:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C338C8FC1E; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:55:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1SbHpx-0007Fz-PH>; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 22:55:45 +0200 Received: from e178013064.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.13.64] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1SbHpx-0001Iy-JM>; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 22:55:45 +0200 Message-ID: <4FCBCF49.1010206@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 22:55:37 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120601 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erich References: <2421561.4aJcXPZZxh@x220.ovitrap.com> <4FCB38F2.4030505@ateamsystems.com> <3851080.JQJobqxLc8@x220.ovitrap.com> In-Reply-To: <3851080.JQJobqxLc8@x220.ovitrap.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig41080BA85D89561BF18ABBB1" X-Originating-IP: 85.178.13.64 Cc: "freebs >> Current FreeBSD" , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Adam Strohl Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 20:55:53 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig41080BA85D89561BF18ABBB1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 06/03/12 15:29, Erich wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On 03 June 2012 PM 5:14:10 Adam Strohl wrote: >> On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote: >>> What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simp= le. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this si= mply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD? >>> >>> I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the por= t tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that= it is not possible. >>> >>> I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that = older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a sec= urity fix if there is no running port for the fix? >> >> I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back= =20 >> to an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security= =20 >> issues! =2E.. I think the PNG update isn't a security issue. And for not being a security issue, it triggered an inadequate mess! >> >> And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, tha= t=20 >> is the solution. Look at the comment of the maintainer of LibreOffice ... >> >> I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlyi= ng=20 >> "need" for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspectiv= e). >=20 > yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree= =2E Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need = now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it. =2E.. I spent now two complete days watching my boxes updating their ports. Several ports do not compile anymore (inkscape, libreoffice, libxul, to name some of the very hurting ones!). >=20 > Do you have a machine that is fast enough to upgrade all your ports and= still finish what your client needs Monday morning? Even my fastest box, a brand new 6 core Sandy-Bridge-E, wasn't capable of compiling all the ports in due time. Several ports requested attendance, several, as mentioned, didn't compile out of the blue. >=20 > The ports tree is not broken as such. Only the installation gets broken= in some sense. Have a version number there would allow people to go back= to the last known working ports tree, install the software - or whatever= has to be done - with a working system. >=20 > Of course, the next step will be an upgrade. But only after the work wh= ich brings in the money is done. >=20 > You do not face this problem on Windows. You can run a 10 year old 'ker= nel' and still install modern software. >=20 > Erich I like having a very modern system with the most recent software. But in some cases, like these days with the PNG, FreeBSD's ports becomes again a problem. There is no convenient way to downgrade or allow the user/admin managing how to deal with the load of updates. --------------enig41080BA85D89561BF18ABBB1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPy89RAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N8uCEIAMQgGimazyFfuNmK9zu4M7B8 uvOQWFSqDidSN23kCXcLur+u/A9a1PjEkuzMFjE//OP7br7SbCxPkdfyqn5j5QG7 Yhj/e0qs5+JL+WePaWWSKAPWmFqZqYtTSkn9/Bf6qglfDjG82hOq+7DxZZz976NP Ki6BGx1GJjUD1YBOeb8rHatc+Dz4PSqshsxBfwbuCieWuq8HRaQjmDeBfJ+77fJI 7RRfyGufixdeizttzWD7/8ouZBlEPqgjXUm5iW2CIvQdE1vHHDNuq70ri9jrGM3S 3ZOo87ewpFcaDfuJbZWGYaTcWRxTuH1K8FF55JTtEwdFeCCcLX78eFKIqR72umk= =M0oQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig41080BA85D89561BF18ABBB1--