From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sat Sep 19 16:47:13 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82D5A05C73 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:47:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AA331D2E for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:47:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-125-111.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.125.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DE803CD77; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 18:47:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id t8JGlCs2018320; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 18:47:12 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 18:47:12 +0200 From: Polytropon To: Slawa Olhovchenkov Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HTTPS on freebsd.org, git, reproducible builds Message-Id: <20150919184712.4d26f3f9.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20150919133248.GB21849@zxy.spb.ru> References: <86vbb7dhaa.fsf@nine.des.no> <20150918134804.GU3158@zxy.spb.ru> <86oagzwf8j.fsf@nine.des.no> <20150919125023.GA21849@zxy.spb.ru> <20150919151517.739ab70a.freebsd@edvax.de> <20150919133248.GB21849@zxy.spb.ru> Reply-To: Polytropon Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:47:13 -0000 On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:32:48 +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 03:15:17PM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > > > On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 15:50:23 +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 12:10:36AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > > > > > > Slawa Olhovchenkov writes: > > > > > freebsd-update builds is inreproducible by the freebsd-update-server bug[s]. > > > > > > > > freebsd-update will most likely be gone in 11. > > > > > > What is planed for replacement? > > > > As far as I could understand, pkg will deal with the components > > comprising the OS in the same manner as it does for the ports > > collection. So the kernel, the userland, the sources and so on > > will "become packages" for pkg to install or upgrade. This is > > a similar approach to common package management on Linux, except > > that Linux (as a term to summarize all the many distributions) > > doesn't have an OS ("the base OS") per se. > > This is very bad. Don't worry. The OS will still be maintained by the FreeBSD team. And the components which the OS is composed of will probably not be separated into hundreds of separate packages (as it is in Linux - where the distribution creators decide which packages belong to a base install, like, which package installer, which shell, X or no X, and so on). In the end, it might look like there are few additional packages that will be installed: sys_bin, sys_src, sys_ports and so on. An update you perform with freebsd-update will then be an update on the sys_* packages with pkg, leading to a binarily upgraded operating system. You then _can_ upgrade your ports collection, or you can leave it as is. This is the advantage of FreeBSD: The OS and the additionally installed (3rd party) software are beging dealt with independently. And this is good. :-) > > You can already see this kind of development: The documentation > > has become a package, and the package manager itself is a > > package (separated from the OS, which only contains a bootstrap > > loader for the real program). Finally, the installation process > > could become a task of "pkg install", instead of "tar xf". And > > a unification of the infrastructures could lead to additional > > benefits (only _one_ system for both components - OS and ports). > > I am have many troubles with this way in Linux. > Kernel and userland versions mismatch. > glibc version incompatible with rpm. > pkunzip.zip problem. > And etc. I know what you're refering to. :-) On Linux, an "upgrade everything" process might involve a kernel or a system library update not properly being dealt with in "userland" (if I may abuse the term in this context). Now you have a system that won't boot anymore, and you might not even be able to reach a kind of maintenance mode (like FreeBSD's single-user mode with /rescue) because somehow your fallback kernel and libraries got deleted... Of course FreeBSD also can run into this kind of problem, but the OS is always consistent. An upgrade does _not_ break the OS. It _might_ break ports. During the course of -STABLE, this usually does not happen (because the interfaces are stable). That's why you always see the advice to recompile (or reinstall) your ports when you move to a new major version, leaving the path of -STABLE. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...