From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 12 21:11:33 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4631065670 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:11:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carton@Ivy.NET) Received: from sakima.Ivy.NET (sakima.Ivy.NET [69.31.131.60]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5799D8FC14 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:11:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from castrovalva.Ivy.NET (castrovalva.Ivy.NET [69.31.131.61]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sakima.Ivy.NET (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D1FA8069 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:11:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by castrovalva.Ivy.NET (Postfix, from userid 405) id E41E512FD0D; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:11:31 -0400 (EDT) To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org References: <4BA9C0AC.3080801@wooh.hu> <20100324075709.GC13561@lonesome.com> <20100324223809.GA34342@alchemy.franken.de> <4BAB4AB9.2090908@buffalo.edu> <1269526260.2007.3.camel@main.lerwick.hopto.org> <20100325233558.GI20888@alchemy.franken.de> <4BACCC0C.7010401@freebsd.org> <20100410015309.GB19697@lonesome.com> From: Miles Nordin MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Apr_12_17:11:31_2010-1"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:11:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Royce Williams's message of "Fri, 9 Apr 2010 19:52:22 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: T-gnus/6.17.2 (based on No Gnus v0.2) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Sanj=F2?=) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (alpha--netbsd) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) Subject: Re: freebsd-update(8) under sparc64? Why is it not available? X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:11:33 -0000 --pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Apr_12_17:11:31_2010-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >>>>> "rw" == Royce Williams writes: rw> Miles' point appears to be that some end users do not have the rw> resources necessary to set up a sufficiently beefy sparc64 rw> build system to respond quickly to security announcements. Colin's position is totally ridiculous: people offer build resources of exotic, heavy, power-hungry hardware to the FreeBSD project, which already has scripts and frameworks for producing timely builds, but he believes these offers are conterproductive because individual users acting separately and without these resources will bumble their way into developing their own scripts and frameworks to do updates much faster, so long as they're not demobilized from this natural task through ``training.'' Where does such implausible belief come from? ``I find the builds boring, and they're more trouble than you'd think---please, someone else more interested do them, far away from me'' strikes me as a fine reason to avoid mucking with a platform that's twice as dead this year as it was last year, but the stated reason is silly mind-twisting obstructionism, and I don't know how anyone can get anything done when such beliefs come naturally. rw> But it could have been said in a more constructive manner. Not in my experience. It sounds like the argument's been going on for several years, so restating the same position in a literal sense will get a repetition of the same deluded responses, which is not constructive at all. The only thing I can think of more constructive might be, ``can I have a copy of all your scripts, please. I'll do my own releases---I just want a head-start on what few solved gotchya's with the build process you've found, and then I'll alter the scripts to integrate with my smart power strip to kick off builds from a work queue at bootup and shut the machine off when the build finishes,'' but I would expect to hear ``I will not give you the scripts because your having and using them will train people to .'' rw> people who would run sparc64 on slow hardware facing the rw> public Internet without being willing and able to disconnect rw> it when something serious was announced are already doing rw> other foolish things You would not believe how much foolish behavior there is on the Internet, and updates are always a nightmare since regressions can take down services just as well as security breaches. It's a complicated issue. But I have never heard anyone say, ``what we really need to push security updates out faster and with fewer regressions, is fewer automated update tools. Have everyone build 'em from source, with 'cvs update' and bmake. Yah, that's what'll tighten up our ship.'' it's totally crazy. rw> "It may be that there's no way to break that 1-hour barrier. rw> Maybe I can convince Colin that, until full cross-compiling is rw> available, we sparc64 folks would settle for slightly-delayed rw> binary security updates (instead of never getting them at rw> all). It's the very fact that we're running on slower rw> hardware that makes freebsd-update so attractive." yeah, what you said, three years ago. good luck, everyone. --pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Apr_12_17:11:31_2010-1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD) iQCVAwUAS8OMg4nCBbTaW/4dAQK/9QP/at/L1Ck65ItbD01gvsHdx/yJCvlGcCyo LwcwkBDBysbsgnLWGXjEGdT58NRNEnHBAJYTG2Pb535FFK26Yu87TMB6NcN5ncz7 pPe6nVccXlPLUH2r9RqWm0yTVjld0Yw/RV2OwlLxdNUBPTl79C5WNvPE7iNsBLNs m2vDY9m90hE= =yhQe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Apr_12_17:11:31_2010-1--