Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 17:33:38 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> Cc: vermaden <vermaden@interia.pl>, Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org>, "freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org" <freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org" <freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, pete@nomadlogic.org, bapt@freebsd.org, bane@pmf.uns.ac.rs Subject: Re: PKGBASE Removes FreeBSD Base System Feature Message-ID: <9a03be4d-4621-445c-980d-e63c7f163e78@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <DF25C123-E233-4EEF-86F2-AD536BA2F397@FreeBSD.org> References: <gblzvammhkzqxmwduyap@vpbk> <na7zou5skn2rcvyoigjgnnlzaomqsx23aj7dq3epq5ds65cu4y@ukgxp5zsj7j7> <fozdqxvxzylwxyvzfrmt@fobq> <a9e07520-eddd-4e55-abab-cf7ecd426c24@quip.cz> <DF25C123-E233-4EEF-86F2-AD536BA2F397@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 01/08/2025 16:22, David Chisnall wrote: > On 31 Jul 2025, at 02:57, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: >> >> I would also like to separate it. Use one command to update (upgrade) >> 3rd party packages and another to update (upgrade) base packages. It >> is our workflow for the last 25+ years thus running one command to >> update both is really unexpected and unwanted. > > I disagree here. If you *want* to separate them, then you can: you can > specify the repository that you want to upgrade explicitly. But if you > do then you risk things like: > > - I’ve upgraded my base system, but not my ports-kmods things, so now > my GUI doesn’t start. > - I’ve upgraded ports, but the ports tree is built on a newer point > release and I need to upgrade to make some symbols exist. > - I’ve upgraded the base system and now some kmods from ports don’t work. > > All of these are things that users have complained about publicly in the > last year or so. > > I have avoided them by always doing `freebsd-update install && pkg > upgrade` and keeping that in my shell history[1] so I don’t accidentally > forget to upgrade both together. > > Given a choice between a thing that works for users, or something that > *can* work for users but comes with a bunch of footguns that they need > to avoid, I’d pick the former. > > David > > [1] I’ve noticed on fresh installs, the default shell no longer has > working persistent history, which is a *big* POLA violation, if people > want to complain about something. I see your point, but our workflow is much different. One command to upgrade base and packages at the same time is like "one to break it all" to me. I have seen broken "pkg upgrade" so many times... but it never breaks base and running ssh so I am still able to fix it somehow.. Running FreeBSD for more than 25 years on tens of machines (headless servers) and I never need to do upgrade of base and packages at the same time. I am not saying nobody need it. Yes it can be useful on upgrading desktops or other installations with kmods, but I think it still can be done in 2 separate steps to keep the base untouched if user wants it. Mainly when there is another step needed - etcupdate. Having base and packages upgraded and only then fixing conflicts with etcupdate seems very bad idea to me. Kind regards Miroslav Lachmanhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9a03be4d-4621-445c-980d-e63c7f163e78>