Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:46:44 -0400 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28 Message-ID: <20120729074644.59db2447@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1207281639520.97526@bcgv.qbhto.arg> References: <000601cd6a76$af1de6b0$0d59b410$@quicknet.nl> <50103781.8060904@FreeBSD.org> <20120725183432.4e73b434@scorpio> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1207281639520.97526@bcgv.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Doug Barton articulated: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Jerry wrote: > > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:14:25 -0700 > > Doug Barton articulated: > > > >> On 07/25/2012 08:03, Michael wrote: > >>> Hello obrien, > >>> > >>> Any plans to update bash-4.2.28 up to patch level 037? > >> > >> Is there a specific bug fixed that you're interested in? > > > > The short answer would be what the hell difference does that make? > > We don't use that kind of language on the FreeBSD lists. > > > The > > OP just wanted to know if the port was going to be updated to > > include the newly released patches. The long answer is that he is > > interested in getting the official patches to correct known > > problems with Bash. Who's business is it what problem, real or > > potential that the OP is looking to correct or prevent? > > Completely aside from my being thoroughly impressed with your > mind-reading abilities, upgrading to the latest/greatest is not > always the best strategy. Speaking generally, even things that are > (nominally) strictly bug fixes can bring in new problems, and Bash > patches are not always strictly bug fixes. First of all, I see you CC'd me "AGAIN". Obviously your comprehension skills are rather lax since I have a clearly noted request NOT to be CC'd and have in the past specifically asked you not to do so. I took the time to relay your CC'd message to SpamCop. I know it won't do any good, but it is a feel good thing. Strictly speaking, it is none of your business if bug fixes can bring in or expose new or undiscovered problems. It has been shown throughout history that any advancement can bring with it, its own new set of problems. Should we all abandon the use of electricity because there is a real possibility that someone man get electrified. "Kainolophobia" can be treated. By the way, do you use bash? if not then what is your problem? If you do, have you read what the patches actually entail? I have. > There is also the issue that in FreeBSD we are generally more > conservative about upgrading something from a known-stable version. That is a lot about nothing. Postfix is updated in virtual real time. For every port that you can list that is left effectively abandoned for extended periods of time, I can produce one that is updated in a timely fashion. I know, now you want a definition of timely. In my opinion, I believe 30 days is sufficient. That is only a general rule. Obviously, some large and complex ports like KDE or the latest version of Apache would not easily fit into that time constraint. However, the maintainers of those ports, just to name a few, have publically posted regarding their work on the port and what has to be done to make it ready for the ports system. If the Bash maintainer⁽¹⁾ feels that there is a problem with updating Bash at this time, then he needs only to post it. > As for my motivations for asking the question, there are at least 2. > First, I don't see anything in the latest set of patches that I find > particularly exciting, but I'm interested in the OP's perspective. > Second, if the OP is actually being affected by one of the things > that is patched, I know the maintainer would be interested in that. I am really impressed with the fact that you have not noted anything in the patches that turns you on. I failed to notice any mention in the FreeBSD handbook, or other literature for that matter that stated that patches, etcetera are only deemed worthy if Doug approves of them. Would you please be so kind as to point out to me where that is so noted. The OP specifically inquired about the updating of Bash which is seriously behind in its FreeBSD patch set. He did not ask for your permission. If you have a fear of updating software (I wonder if there is a phobia for that) then don't update yours. I know that in Portmanager and Portupgrade I can specifically exclude ports I do not want to touch. What is so hard to comprehend abut that? The solution is so simple that I fail to grasp why it is beyond your comprehension. The port is simply updated in the port's tree. Then an end user has the option of updating on their machine or not. The "KISS" principal at its finest. CHOICE, isn't that what open-source software is all about, or is it only applicable when Doug approves of it? Seriously, I really want to know. It readily appears that you are attempting to use Parkinson's Law of Triviality, also known as bikeshedding to legitimize the delay of updating a port sans any concrete proof? Why? What are you so terrified of? If you don't use the port, then it is of no significance to you. If you do and choose not to update it, then that is your business. Again, such a simple decision. Doug, I still use version 1.x of Dovecot. Why you ask -- because I want to. Why didn't I update you inquire -- because I did not want to. However, I am very glad that there is a much improved version 2.x of Dovecot and plan to take it out for a test drive when I have to install a new mail-server, perhaps later this year. Furthermore, the first releases of Dovecot 2.x were riddled with problems. Only through its active use where the problems discovered and fixed. Of course, using your logic, that release should never have happened since Dovecot 1.x was functional and the 2.x might introduce compatibility problems or software design flaws. > > Actually, the OP would be better served contacting the port > > maintainer <obrien@FreeBSD.org>. Unlike Postfix that > > <sahil@FreeBSD.org> updates in virtually real time, there is > > usually quite a lag between the time Bash issues a patch and the > > time it makes it into the ports system. > > See above. Bash is never updated in a timely manner. It was a year behind in its last update. Perhaps the Bash maintainer⁽¹⁾ only chooses to maintain the port on a bi-yearly or yearly schedule. If so, they should clearly say somewhere in the ports documentation. That would serve to eliminate questions like the OP's from being posted. Quite frankly, this entire conversation regarding Bash should have taken place between the port maintainer and the OP. It is the only way the OP will ever get an answer, satisfactory or otherwise assuming he gets one at all. ⁽¹⁾ obrien@FreeBSD.org -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________ We have seen the light at the end of the tunnel, and it's out.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120729074644.59db2447>