From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 2 14:54:55 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A396106566B for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:54:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from remailer@dizum.com) Received: from smtp.zedz.net (outpost.zedz.net [194.109.206.210]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8038A8FC16 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:54:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.zedz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C850E1AA255 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 15:35:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.zedz.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vlS0nHB47PHf for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 15:35:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by smtp.zedz.net (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 03DFE1AA110; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 15:35:24 +0100 (CET) From: Nomen Nescio Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . To: stable@freebsd.org X-Invalid: 6Gn_zPzxz5tLuzPOW=kK9Yxq mrLTyitvGfAPhrkbw__13836.2677921124$1330688838$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <18c325310044439cbc4d03c7e0bbec52@dizum.com> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 15:35:24 +0100 (CET) Cc: Subject: Re: flowtable usable or not X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:54:55 -0000 > my experiences of slow and nightmarishly error-ridden port updates I have no intention to bash FreeBSD or ports but ports is certainly not without problems. It's annoying but not a reason to use Ubuntu! Get a grip, man! ;-) > I know there are users who have operated without such problems I think if you use the i386 architecture and the common ports you are less likely to find something before somebody else finds it and it gets fixed. If you use any other platform you are likely to find problems with ports and this gets amplified if you use nonstandard (read stuff not everybody uses) ports. I have found several ports broken for many releases in a row. Other ports aren't supported on certain target architectures but the build doesn't tell you that until after it has run for a couple of hours downloading huge source tarballs and compiling them only to give you a nastygram "Sorry this port is not available on AMD64" of something like that. I understand not every port maintainer can test on every arch but come on, for stuff that you know doesn't work can't you check at the beginning and stop rather than put out a message when the build breaks?