Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 09:24:25 -0800 From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> To: Royce Williams <royce@tycho.org> Cc: Deb Goodkin <deb@freebsdfoundation.org>, ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: BIND REPLACE_BASE option Message-ID: <9132c8812ccd3906dd487830a912d00c@ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BE3k92wtj_584PvgjLmHXCyYPLX9%2B95SkC8fdfHK%2BZR0sdybg@mail.gmail.com> References: <mailman.1.1420977600.74846.freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> <20150111235449.A14AEF52@hub.freebsd.org> <20150112040129.GA16097@lonesome.com> <CAG=rPVcTsT2izsmdGMJtD6RgRJ3CwfZg1vN6nC%2BvRMYEQ8iPhA@mail.gmail.com> <20150112122652.GA9472@lonesome.com> <54B3BE2C.6030207@sorbs.net> <20150112123241.GB9472@lonesome.com> <54B3C28C.10605@sorbs.net> <20150112130804.GD44537@home.opsec.eu> <CA%2BE3k92LJPRNA-pj_5EkheMogWitpCfgaUi==KsfAz=gZMu5jw@mail.gmail.com> <fe6efb4ec026964fb08d50ada48957a5@ultimatedns.net>, <CA%2BE3k92wtj_584PvgjLmHXCyYPLX9%2B95SkC8fdfHK%2BZR0sdybg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 07:55:45 -0900 Royce Williams <royce@tycho.org> wrote > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Chris H <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> wrote: > > > As to the "sysadmin gap" a look to > > the ports tree seems to indicate quite a volume of "sysadmin" > > related ports. Are some missing? > > To the contrary -- there are too many. > > A good project would be to survey which ones people actually use, and > why -- and then bring their best features into base. I agree something like thishas value. But obtaining access to the usage matrix is the key. > > This would be difficult to do as a independent skunkworks project, and > would be better suited as a high-level, Foundation-sponsored one. see above. > > (For example, in the Debian ecosystem, for most people, there is no > reason to use something other than apt-get, because it does what it > should and does it well. Every time I upgrade a port, I have to study > /usr/ports/UPDATING, read multiple mailing lists, and hold my breath. > I cannot remember the last time I worried about running apt-get. > Arguments about flexibility and diversity ecosystem don't hold up well > when the basics fail on a regular basis.) Here is where we will clash; I've been riding *BSD for over 20yrs. It's *biggest* asset has been in it's flexibility -- it wasn't another Linux "dist", that required me to essentially become a "clone" of every other Linux install. The Ports system, and /src allowed one to tailor my build/install to meet *my* needs. I wasn't required, in fact I was *encouraged*, to have a unique system. Frankly the new pkg(8) *requirement* was a complete 180 on this philosophy. It's implementation was also flawed in many respects (which speaks to your point). I have no objection to pkg(8), per se; But it *should* have been optional, it *should* have been better (longer) tested, *before* pushed into the ecosystem, and should *not* have been implemented with a backend with single-point-of-failue (sqlite3(1). Honestly; why did pkg(8) have to be *required*? Is FreeBSD simply hoping to become a new "distro"? But, given it's there, and how it's there. You have/bring up some valid, points; it *is* a bit of a game of roulette. I *too* get a knot in my stomach even at the *thought* of an upgrade. Sure there are plenty of choices in an upgrade path/implementation. But, as it sits now, I'm not sure I can say it's gotten any easier, or "trouble free", as a result of pkg(8). --Chris > > Royce > _______________________________________________ > 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" --Chris ---
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9132c8812ccd3906dd487830a912d00c>