Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:06:28 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin <rik@inse.ru> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CVS removal from the base Message-ID: <4EDB7054.3020203@inse.ru> In-Reply-To: <4EDABDE8.9060406@FreeBSD.org> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote: > On 12/3/2011 1:21 AM, Roman Kurakin wrote: > >> Doug Barton wrote: >> >>> [...] The fact that we have so many people who are radically >>> change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a >>> feature. >>> >>> This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that >>> the majority view seems to lean heavily towards "If I use it, it >>> must be the default and/or in the base" rather than seeing ports as >>> part of the overall operating SYSTEM. >>> >>> >> You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking >> about bootstrap. >> > You realize that you just 100% demonstrated the truth of what I wrote > above, right? :) > Don't you really think that one would protect smth that he/she not using? I hope no ;-) People (and me one of them) just try to protect smth they like in a system and they use. If you are ready to provide alternative the number of people against this change will decrease to smaller list that don't like change habits or use smth in much wider area. >> CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get >> the sources to the freshly installed system to recompile to the last >> available source. It will become inconvenient to do it through the >> process of installing some ports for that. Especially if >> corresponding ports would require some other ports as dependences. >> > > I want to ask some serious questions here, because I genuinely want to > understand your thought process. > > 1. Do you install *any* ports/packages on a new system before you update > the source? > No. Usually base system is updated in a first turn. I even do not install pkgs usually. > 2. If so, why is installing one more unthinkable? > Sorry, but the previous answer was opposite. But despite of that, I do not like additional packages. I've started to use jails more often not only from a security issue, but also cause of the problems with upgrade. The more packages you have in the system - the harder to upgrade them if the last upgrade was not done recently. But this is the other story. > 3. Why is it a problem if the port/package you need to install in the > early stages has dependencies? > The amount of time you need to get and compile all the stuff. The first packages I usually install is the 'bash' and 'portupgrade'. I didn't ever count dependences for just two packages I need, but it is about 15-20 of them. I can do working system solving the most of needed task without both of them. And I do my job while they are installing (or better to say their dependences). If I need to fix some detached from the internet systems, I do not need to keep the set of packages for set of branches and for set of dependences just only sources, base system, my hands and my head. rik > > Thanks, > > Doug > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EDB7054.3020203>