Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 11:59:05 -0600 (CST) From: "Lee Crites (AEI)" <leec@adam.adonai.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: FreeBSD-Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Error installing pine-3.96 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970331111950.27679C-100000@adam.adonai.net> In-Reply-To: <11118.859817826@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: =>Thoughts? I have one thought I'd like to toss into the soup... <background mode> I have two decades of computer experience. I've done just about everything once (and some things I don't want to admit to more than once -- anyone need a cobol programmer anymore?) In this time, I've installed the exact same code base on upwards of a dozen platforms (hardware/os combinations). So I know what's involved in keeping a suite of programs in a position to be compiled on multiple platforms at any one time. Now, with all of that, I have just over four months of FreeBSD experience. So take my following comments with that in mind... </background mode> It appears to me, from my perusing the code and makefiles, from my discussions with other fbsd'ers, etc, that the whole focus of fbsd is that of a single pc on your desk that attackes to something else. This manifests itself in things like the make world process is hardcoded to replace the real system. When I used ctm to get me the latest 2.2 code (for the digiboard driver), the make world started replacing the 2.1.5 executables with the 2.2 ones. This is fraught with potential problems. What if I had to reboot in the middle and the kernel was 2.1.5 and csh was 2.2? Potential problem all over the place. We already take into consideration the possibility of a person having a pc with multiple os's on it. Why can't we consider the option of having one pc with multiple versions of fbsd on it? One of the excuses for not making a port compatible with more than one version is that you can't test a 2.1.7 on a 2.2 (or a 3.0) system. Why not? Why can't I compile my 2.2 system and have it sit in a local subdirectory instead of the real system directories. I know, I could use an nfs mounted system which holds the code and compile on another box, but that begs the question. The code is still going into the 'live' area of the machine in question. When we did a make of our system, it went into a subdirectory for that particular platform (make picked up the host and chdir to it's tree). We could 'make world' while people were using/testing the system and they wouldn't know it. Now that I've said that, let me say I am really starting to like my fbsd system. It's pretty clean, it's running very well, seems quite stable, and it is getting the job done without my constant intervention. I'm a happy guy. I can just see things that make me think some people are stuck in this 'small system on my pc' mode. And if they caught a bigger vision, then perhaps bigger things would happen. I'm taking care of my problem. I'm adding another box onto my lan which will hold the current code base and will keep it up to date. But how many people have access to a computer they can 'waste' running ctm. If it crashes, none of my clients will know (or care). I'll then hack the makefile(s) so I'll be able to compile kernels for all of my other machines. Then I'll make scripts which will copy the new executables and kernel to the target box. And I'll keep the code from the older versions, so if, by chance, I actually develop or port something, I can ensure it works for the multiple versions. But again I ask, who can afford to stick several boxes on a rack running ctm/cvsup? It's obvious not all of the core members do. And while I don't think they should have to, the current paradigm seems to either force them to or accept a lower grade of support -- that of only the -current stuff being kept up-to-date. So that's my $0.02 worth (and probably a lot more). Again, let me say, I am quite happy with fbsd. And I am personally willing to do what it takes to keep my system up and stable for my clients. Even if I think it is a little excessive. Lee
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970331111950.27679C-100000>