Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:46:52 -0800 From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: Royce Williams <royce@tycho.org>, Deb Goodkin <deb@freebsdfoundation.org>, ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: BIND REPLACE_BASE option Message-ID: <9f016d9eec43a047bcfbae526367a2c1@ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1501121119020.82614@wonkity.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> <9132c8812ccd3906dd487830a912d00c@ultimatedns.net>, <alpine.BSF.2.11.1501121119020.82614@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:57:26 -0700 (MST) Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote > On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Chris H wrote: > > > 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. > > Huh? It is the same as the old package system, required if you want to > use ports or packages. The difference is that pkg is not in base, so it > can be easily upgraded without doing an OS upgrade. Ports continue to > work as they did with the old package system, only package operations > are faster and more reliable. Sure, it's intended to *feel* like pkg_, but the (way) it's implemented bears little resemblance to pkg_, and it's implementation also *abruptly* pulled the rug out from under many years of development work, carefully crafted work by development shops to keep their stream flowing smoothly and more efficiently. [I'm kicking a dead horse here] > > My main complaint with pkg is the persistent misunderstanding that > binary packages are a direct replacement for ports. > http://www.wonkity.com/~wblock/docs/html/pkg.html I'd be inclined to agree here. > > As for the original topic, BIND in base had the same upgrade problems as > the old package system. The port overwriting the base was a convenient > but nasty hack. Not even that convenient, because all that changes with > the port is the config files are in /usr/local/etc rather than /etc. A > chroot adds little security or isolation, and if you want that it should > be in a jail or other type of VM anyway. > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/jails-ezjail.html# Speaking of kicking "dead horses"; I'm still amazed that this topic still continues. I remember the initial discussion on this about 9mos ago, and thought; OK. That seems to make sense. I'd better see if I can cobble up something that mimic's the old setup, so I can keep things going, until I find a suitable replacement for the BIND. Took me less than 2hrs. Point being; there was a fair amount of time before the BIND got yanked (unlike the pkg change). So I'm amazed so many people are, well, amazed. --Chris ---
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9f016d9eec43a047bcfbae526367a2c1>