Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 22:59:14 -0500 From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Roman Kurakin <rik@inse.ru>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CVS removal from the base Message-ID: <CAOgwaMuf1NDrJHXvsxwtAjpWnBM8ya19n6EJysEaBTYd5dQOpQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmokcdtPpz5a=Apy0OCTxmYHH9ELpVmYy%2BiurnTujUyyu3w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CADe0-4kEJsj5pe6h4ZVPGg-hFEjE7oC4Ya8VO7sdW9W3WZiajg@mail.gmail.com> <20111202115446.GB25963@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <CADe0-4=8z%2BpFAem83xMkYXYZCgCt9r_tX64he5Vx95OkAJqtFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonQQ-yHrDox35gpuaXXYV5j%2BUXOJH5jr93m3j=uBgbkWA@mail.gmail.com> <4ED974A2.7080606@FreeBSD.org> <4ED9EA27.8090206@inse.ru> <4EDABDE8.9060406@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-VmokcdtPpz5a=Apy0OCTxmYHH9ELpVmYy%2BiurnTujUyyu3w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > The problem I have with all of this is pretty simple. > > With the CVS in base, it's treated like the (mostly) rest of the > system in a stable release - ie, people don't simply keep updating it > to the latest and greatest without some testing. If there are any > critical bugs or security flaws, they're backported. The port isn't > upgraded unless it has to be, and then if it's a major update, there > are plenty of eyeballs to review it. It's in /src, after all. > > But with ports, the ports tree only has the "latest" version or two; > sometimes a few major versions to choose from (eg apache), but we > don't maintain the same kind of package versions that Linux operating > system packages do. > > So it's entirely possible the "CVS" port maintainer updates the port > to the latest and greatest, which works for him - and it breaks > someone's older CVS repository somehow. > > I'd be happier with the idea of things moving into ports if the ports > tree did have stable snapshots which had incremental patches for > bug/security fixes, rather than "upgrade to whatever the port > maintainer chooses." > > I'm all for change, but it seems those pushing forward change seem to > be far exceeding the comfortable level of more conservative people; or > those with real needs. Those who have relied on FreeBSD's stable > release source tree being that - stable - whilst ports moves along > with the latest and greatest as needed. It doesn't matter that you may > do a fantastic job with a stable CVS port - what matters is how > people perceive what you're doing. It just takes one perceived screwup > here for the view to shift that "freebsd is going the way of linux". > And then we lose a whole lot of what public "good" opinion FreeBSD > has. ;-) > > 2c, > > Adrian > Over the years , by installing and studying many operating system distributions , my opinions for FreeBSD has been converged toward the following : Supplying only a console-mode FreeBSD as a release is making FreeBSD unusable for peoples who they are not computing experts . To allow less experienced people to use FreeBSD easily , it is necessary to include a selected ports/packages into release distributions , therefore into so-called BASE as a /ports or /packages part . When a new FreeBSD release will be installed , it is becoming necessary to install many packages additionally , and setting many parameters in the *.conf , etc. , files to make it usable . One unfortunate situation is that some packages are NOT working at the release moment . In the packages tree , it seems that there is no any regular update policy for a specific release . It is possible to "make port_name" , but this is NOT so much usable also : For a specific package , which is installing within less than 30 minutes by pkg_add , required more than eighteen hours by "make ..." . Reason was that MAKE is an extremely STUPID system ( without BRAIN ) because , it is NOT able to remember that it has completed making a package part a few seconds before , and it is starting the same steps to apply up to the point that it is not necessary to make it once more ( after applying many steps which was applied before ) . One immediate reaction to such an idea is to mention PC-BSD . If the PC-BSD is the solution , what is the reason of maintaining a large FreeBSD ports tree and consuming a huge amount of efforts to manage a so large repository ? Another possibility is FreeBSD/Debian combination . When compared to Linux/Debian , it is unusable also , because , I do NOT know the reason , it is VERY slow . I am NOT suggesting to include as many packages as possible : Just an "OPTIMUM" number of packages to allow the users to have a working installation "out of the box" . It is possible to obtain an idea if there is a statistics set about downloaded packages by pkg_add . After setting a percentage to satisfy user needs , it will be easy to make a list of packages to include . Even myself I am NOT using FreeBSD , because I am NOT able to use it : For example , 9.0 RC2 : There is NO KDE4 at this moment , KDE3 is NOT working , GNOME2 is NOT working , the others I am NOT using because they are not capable as much as KDE or GNOME . If such a selected packages maintained within BASE /ports , or /packages , there will NOT be such difficulties to use the FreeBSD ( difficulty is transferred from the user to FreeBSD teams ) . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOgwaMuf1NDrJHXvsxwtAjpWnBM8ya19n6EJysEaBTYd5dQOpQ>