From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 18 17:28:41 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19DB16A4CE; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:28:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lariat.org (lariat.net [65.122.236.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B1A43D2D; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:28:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from anne-o1dpaayth1.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.net [65.122.236.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16529; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:28:37 -0600 (MDT) X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook renders your system susceptible to Internet worms. Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050418112233.059694d0@localhost> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:28:18 -0600 To: "Steve Ames" , "Colin Percival" From: Brett Glass In-Reply-To: <011701c5443a$fbdfb060$9b00030a@officescape.net> References: <20050412213328.GC1953@lava.net> <6.2.1.2.2.20050417185631.05349ee0@localhost> <200504180330.37184.danny@ricin.com> <426310A0.7060906@freebsd.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050417202031.0490ad98@localhost> <4263280B.3010601@freebsd.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050418020749.05761298@localhost> <002b01c5442c$d4a1caf0$9b00030a@officescape.net> <6.2.1.2.2.20050418094749.057187f0@localhost> <007c01c5442f$c9a36ed0$9b00030a@officescape.net> <6.2.1.2.2.20050418105722.05c08490@localhost> <011701c5443a$fbdfb060$9b00030a@officescape.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Will 5.4 be an "Extended Life" release? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:28:42 -0000 At 11:20 AM 4/18/2005, Steve Ames wrote: >Ah. Packages and /stand/sysinstall. Yeah. I haven't installed a package from >sysinstall in YEARS so I probably wouldn't have noticed that. Getting >security updates for packages using sysinstall is a total lose. cvsup and >portupgrade are my tools of choice... I've never gotten portupgrade to work properly. CVS works, but is problematic in that when you upgrade all of your ports and then decide to deinstall one, the deinstall sometimes fails because of the upgrade! I like the ports system, but it really is rough around the edges. >with a little portaudit thrown in to >let me know when I should update something. I've never tried using it. >To use sysinstall you need >something approaching an actual release (with ports). I use sysinstall to >put a bare minium OS on a machine and then immediately switch to cvsup. Yes, this works most of the time. But, as mentioned above, you can be surprised when you update your ports and suddenly find that (a) you can't even deinstall because of changes to a port, or (b) you go back to a port to compile it with different options and find that there's a whole new version there that won't compile for some reason. (This happened to me just last week on an older system. After the cvsup, the master Makefile for the ports collection was no longer compatible with the version of "make" on the system, so I couldn't do ANYTHING with ANY port.) --Brett